Solve jquery 2 & 3 type clash

[sainthkh]

• Closes Upgrading Cypress from 4.0.1 to 4.3.0 results in conflicting jquery typedefs #7063

User facing changelog

You can now use jquery 2 with Cypress.

Additional details

Why was this change necessary?

Type definitions of jQuery 2 and 3 are really different a lot. Because of that, tsc type check fails when users use jQuery 1 or 2 in their project.

What is affected by this change?

N/A

Any implementation details to explain?

This PR copied and patched @types/jquery:

• JQuery -> JQuery3
• JQueryStatic -> JQueryStatic3
• Removed legacy.d.ts.

How has the user experience changed?

N/A

About testing

To test this, we need a project with jQuery 2 as a dependency. To automate this, we need to do it on master like #7072,

PR Tasks

• [N/A] Have tests been added/updated?
• Has the original issue been tagged with a release in ZenHub?
• [N/A] Has a PR for user-facing changes been opened in cypress-documentation?
• [N/A] Have API changes been updated in the type definitions?
• [N/A] Have new configuration options been added to the cypress.schema.json?

[cypress-bot]

Thanks for the contribution! Below are some guidelines Cypress uses when doing PR reviews.

• Please write [WIP] in the title of your Pull Request if your PR is not ready for review - someone will review your PR as soon as the [WIP] is removed.
• Please familiarize yourself with the PR Review Checklist and feel free to make updates on your PR based on these guidelines.

PR Review Checklist

If any of the following requirements can't be met, leave a comment in the review selecting 'Request changes', otherwise 'Approve'.

User Experience

• The feature/bugfix is self-documenting from within the product.
• The change provides the end user with a way to fix their problem (no dead ends).

Functionality

• The code works and performs its intended function with the correct logic.
• Performance has been factored in (for example, the code cleans up after itself to not cause memory leaks).
• The code guards against edge cases and invalid input and has tests to cover it.

Maintainability

• The code is readable (too many nested 'if's are a bad sign).
• Names used for variables, methods, etc, clearly describe their function.
• The code is easy to understood and there are relevant comments explaining.
• New algorithms are documented in the code with link(s) to external docs (flowcharts, w3c, chrome, firefox).
• There are comments containing link(s) to the addressed issue (in tests and code).

Quality

• The change does not reimplement code.
• There's not a module from the ecosystem that should be used instead.
• There is no redundant or duplicate code.
• There are no irrelevant comments left in the code.
• Tests are testing the code’s intended functionality in the best way possible.

Internal

• The original issue has been tagged with a release in ZenHub.

[jennifer-shehane]

Hey @sainthkh, we're changing our contributing workflow to use Draft PRs instead of [WIP] in the title. If you can, go ahead and convert this PR to a Draft PR and remove [WIP] from the title.

Please mark the PR as Ready for Review when you're ready for a Cypress team member to review the PR.

[sainthkh]

Closed until the user responses.