[Bug/Regression]: Failed match mutates ObjectContaining

[jeengbe]

Version

30.0.0-alpha.6

Steps to reproduce

describe('should be able to use multiple times', () => {
  test('minimal reproduction', () => {
    const matcher = expect.objectContaining({ id: '2' });

    expect({ id: '1', prop: 'prop1' }).not.toEqual(matcher);
    expect({ id: '2' }).toEqual(matcher);
  });

  test('example use case', () => {
    // Check that the items received are what we expect them to be.
    // Note: The order of the items is not defined.
    const itemsFromDb = [
      {
        id: '1',
        prop: 'prop1',
      },
      {
        id: '2',
      },
    ];

    expect(itemsFromDb).toEqual(
      expect.arrayContaining([
        expect.objectContaining({ id: '1' }),
        expect.objectContaining({ id: '2' }),
      ]),
    );
    expect(itemsFromDb.length).toBe(2);

    /*
     * expect(received).toEqual(expected) // deep equality
     *
     * Expected: ArrayContaining [ObjectContaining {"id": "1"}, ObjectContaining {"id": "2", "prop": "prop1"}]
     *                                                                                       ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
     * Received: [{"id": "1", "prop": "prop1"}, {"id": "2"}]
     */
  });
});

The first test case demonstrates the bare-bones issue, the second shows how this pattern can arise in normal code.

Expected behavior

ObjectContaining should work within ArrayContaining.

Actual behavior

If an ObjectContaining matcher instance is invoked after having failed before (see the first test), the second invocation expects excess properties from the first invocation to be present.

Additional context

This broke in #15038.

Environment

System:
  OS: Linux 5.15 Ubuntu 22.04.5 LTS 22.04.5 LTS (Jammy Jellyfish)
  CPU: (24) x64 AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT 12-Core Processor
Binaries:
  Node: 22.1.0 - /usr/local/bin/node
  Yarn: 1.22.19 - /usr/local/bin/yarn
  npm: 10.9.2 - /usr/local/bin/npm
  pnpm: 9.15.3 - /usr/local/bin/pnpm
  bun: 1.1.20 - ~/.bun/bin/bun
npmPackages:
  jest: ^30.0.0-alpha.6 => 30.0.0-alpha.6

[mohammednumaan]

@jeengbe It works perfectly fine here (or did I misunderstand the problem?) 🤔

[jeengbe]

Those two tests should fail.

Could you check you're using any of the alpha.4-6 versions, that's when the bug is introduced.

[mohammednumaan]

@jeengbe I don't think I'm using any of the alpha versions 🤔