Start interactive execution from BeforeDiscovery

[fflaten]

PR Summary

Extends interactive execution to also being triggered from root-level BeforeDiscovery.

This is necessary to avoid leaking variables from a BeforeDiscovery-block to Run-phase during interactive execution when BeforeDiscovery is placed before Context\Describe which it usually is. The variables would've been made available in Run-phase from a parent scope.

Before-/AfterEach throw when used in root and Before-/AfterAll only works when in Discovery-phase, so they're not affected.

Fix #2092

PR Checklist

• PR has meaningful title
• Summary describes changes
• PR is ready to be merged
  • If not, use the arrow next to Create Pull Request to mark it as a draft. PR can be marked Ready for review when it's ready.
• Tests are added/update (if required)
• Documentation is updated/added (if required)

[fflaten]

@nohwnd Do you know what this does? It was only added for Context in #1435 and I don't think it's triggered. The variable would be lost the next time since it's local to Context-function.

Pester/src/functions/Context.ps1

Lines 118 to 121 in dd7d09e

	if ($invokedInteractively) {
	return
	}
	$invokedInteractively = $true

Early attempt of solving this maybe?

Pester/src/functions/Describe.ps1

Lines 135 to 145 in dd7d09e

	if ($null -ne $script:lastExecutedAt -and ([datetime]::now - $script:lastExecutedAt).TotalMilliseconds -lt 100 -and $script:lastExecutedFile -eq $ScriptName) {
	# skip file if the same file was executed less than 100 ms ago. This is here because we will run the file from the first
	# describe and the subsequent describes in the same file would try to re-run the file. 100ms window should be good enough
	# to be transparent for the interactive use, yet big enough to advance from the end of the command to the next, even on slow systems
	# use the file name as well to allow running multiple files in sequence
	$script:lastExecutedFile = $ScriptName
	$script:lastExecutedAt = [datetime]::Now
	return
	}

Update: I've suggested to remove it in the related PR

[nohwnd]

Yeah that looks like it was early attempt to solve having multiple top-level blocks in the same file.