Simplify test_package_generation.

[samcunliffe]

I would very much like to get rid of the complete duplication of the {{cookiecutter.project_slug}} directory.

This proposal massively simplifies test_package_generation and removes the regression data.

[samcunliffe]

[Copilot]

Copilot review overview

🟢 Approval recommended

The focused assertions match fixture defaults, installation and documentation-build tests remain intact, and static review identified no blocking issues.

Review effort: Balanced
Findings: None

What changed in this PR

Simplifies Cookiecutter generation testing by replacing full snapshot comparisons with focused checks, removing duplicated generated-project data.

Changes:

• Checks generation success, required files, and selected rendered values.
• Removes snapshot comparison and automatic fixture replacement.
• Deletes the stored reference project.

File	Description
tests/​test_package_generation.py	Replaces snapshot comparison with focused assertions.
tests/​data/​test_package_generation/​tests/​test_dummy.py	Removes reference test.
tests/​data/​test_package_generation/​src/​cookiecutter_test/​__init__.py	Removes reference package source.
tests/​data/​test_package_generation/​README.md	Removes reference README.
tests/​data/​test_package_generation/​pyproject.toml	Removes reference project configuration.
tests/​data/​test_package_generation/​mkdocs.yml	Removes reference documentation configuration.
tests/​data/​test_package_generation/​LICENSE.md	Removes reference license.
tests/​data/​test_package_generation/​docs/​LICENSE.md	Removes reference license page.
tests/​data/​test_package_generation/​docs/​index.md	Removes reference overview page.
tests/​data/​test_package_generation/​docs/​api.md	Removes reference API page.
tests/​data/​test_package_generation/​CITATION.cff	Removes reference citation metadata.
tests/​data/​test_package_generation/​.pre-commit-config.yaml	Removes reference hook configuration.
tests/​data/​test_package_generation/​.markdownlint.yaml	Removes reference Markdown lint configuration.
tests/​data/​test_package_generation/​.gitignore	Removes reference ignore rules.
tests/​data/​test_package_generation/​.github/​workflows/​tests.yml	Removes reference test workflow.
tests/​data/​test_package_generation/​.github/​workflows/​linting.yml	Removes reference lint workflow.
tests/​data/​test_package_generation/​.github/​workflows/​docs.yml	Removes reference documentation workflow.
tests/​data/​test_package_generation/​.github/​schemas/​github-issue-forms.json	Removes reference issue-form schema.
tests/​data/​test_package_generation/​.github/​ISSUE_TEMPLATE/​question.yml	Removes reference question form.
tests/​data/​test_package_generation/​.github/​ISSUE_TEMPLATE/​feature_request.yml	Removes reference feature-request form.
tests/​data/​test_package_generation/​.github/​ISSUE_TEMPLATE/​documentation.yml	Removes reference documentation form.
tests/​data/​test_package_generation/​.github/​ISSUE_TEMPLATE/​config.yml	Removes reference issue configuration.
tests/​data/​test_package_generation/​.github/​ISSUE_TEMPLATE/​bug_report.yml	Removes reference bug-report form.

---

💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.

[paddyroddy]

Crazy levels. Consider me intrigued.

[paddyroddy]

Code looks fine, but this is not as thorough as before. Maybe this isn't a problem, but previously we were checking every file.

[samcunliffe]

Code looks fine, but this is not as thorough as before. Maybe this isn't a problem, but previously we were checking every file.

Right. I guess that's my proposal. We want to ensure that the template generation works (the most important thing) and for that we don't need every single file to regress against.

To my knowledge we've never caught a bug with the regression test that wouldn't have been caught with a simpler thing like this.

[paddyroddy]

So it looks like the initial intent was because there was a mismatch in pyproject.toml configuration #329. So I guess the question is whether we are certain that every file we're currently checking is sufficient or not.

[samcunliffe]

So it looks like the initial intent was because there was a mismatch in pyproject.toml configuration #329. So I guess the question is whether we are certain that every file we're currently checking is sufficient or not.

I think a check that the pyproject.toml is valid toml should suffice. And we do that because we lint the template. We could add a uv sync step that checks the cookiecut template is installable?

[paddyroddy]

I like that idea