The code that works with Jasmine is completely different from the
one working with Mocha and QUnit. The results sent to '_report' API
in case of Jasmine has very limited information resulting in the
case as described in this issue.

It was found that the Jasmine reports are actually as good as Mocha
and it's our code that does not let it pass through in its entirety
causing the limited information.

- jasmine-jsreporter.js: it has the code that prepares per test suite
  report, and cuts out detailed information. It was modified to retain
  detailed information. Also some 'summarization' attributes are
  just duplicate state, and hence they were removed

- jasmine-plugin.js: it has code that further summarizes the reports
  created per suite in jasmine-jsreporter.js before making a call to
  the '_report' API. It was modified to retain detailed information.

- server.js: for Jasmine case, a 'reformatting' adapter function is
  added. With the changes done in above files, detailed information
  as good as Mocha is available; however, the structure is different.
  This function adapts the structure such that the final reports are
  in the format desired. This function is called in the handler for
  '_report' API.

Limitations/Differences

- There is no equivalent of '_progress' API here. The 'tests' attribute
  at the topmost level is built in the '_progress' API in case of Mocha.
  This API gets called as each test completes with Mocha. In Jasmine case,
  we build the 'tests' attribute in the handler for '_report' call itself.
- In case of Mocha, whether it's an assertion failure or an uncaught
  exception, stack trace is available for both cases. In Jasmine case,
  stack trace is available only in case of uncaught exceptions. In case
  of assertion failures, Jasmine provides only a message, not a trace.