chore(test): collect cli output in tests

[rubiesonthesky]

PR Checklist

• Addresses an existing open issue: fixes 🛠 Tooling: collect cli output in integration tests #2197
• That issue was marked as status: accepting prs
• Steps in CONTRIBUTING.md were taken

Overview

Collect CLI output in integration tests.

Added mutation stats to "log" output so we can see what kind of changes there are in integration tests.

I also added checkTestResult function so I didn't have to change every test to include output snapshotting. Which meant that I had to change every test. 😅 If no snapshot is reported as unneeded, then I should have changed every test successfully.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 76.59%. Comparing base (8dd19f9) to head (a1da636).
⚠️ Report is 183 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2198      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   76.52%   76.59%   +0.07%     
==========================================
  Files         168      168              
  Lines        7109     7131      +22     
  Branches     1092     1101       +9     
==========================================
+ Hits         5440     5462      +22     
  Misses       1663     1663              
  Partials        6        6              

Flag	Coverage Δ
mutation	70.28% <100.00%> (+0.09%)	⬆️
unit	14.47% <3.33%> (-0.04%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[JoshuaKGoldberg]

[Refactor] 😬 I really, really dislike expect.assertions. It's super brittle: relying on implementation details cross-test. If you ever rework a test, add a utility that runs multiple assertions, etc. you end up having to change a bunch of otherwise-seemingly-arbitrary numbers. Plus it's not comprehensive - if some async logic gets added to tests and the author forgets to update a number, it can fail silently or in some future tests. Spooky.

Request: remove the expect.assertions(...) calls. If there are places that would need that logic, we can always look at them individually. (are there?)

[JoshuaKGoldberg]

[Refactor] Having multiple assertions in a test means we only get insights from one failure at a time. If assertion 1 of 3 fails, we don't know at a glance if 2 or 3 did.

My normal trick for this kind of thing is:

Suggested change

	await expect(actualContent).toMatchFileSnapshot(expectedFilePath);
	expect(options).toMatchSnapshot("options");
	expect(output).toMatchSnapshot("output");
	await expect({ actualContent, options, output }).toMatchFileSnapshot(expectedFilePath);