Add support for multiple snapshotting strategy for each assert

[mackoj]

Attempt to fix #116

[mbrandonw]

Thanks for the PR! Stephen and I will discuss this sometime soon, but in the meantime there is a quick thing you can do to get tests passing. Make sure to pass along the file, testName and line to the assert snapshot helpers so that files names are recorded properly.

We also prefer to have all the function arguments on a newline if they don't fit on online, as opposed to this hanging argument style.

Also there's an extra image that was added to the repo that could be deleted:

assertSnapshot-matching-as-named-record-timeout-file-testName-line.1.png

[mackoj]

Thanks for the comments, I will do the modification

[stephencelis]

Hey @mackoj, thanks for the PR! One thing that I think needs to change is that assertSnapshots needs to lose the named parameter. The name there replaces the auto-incrementing default name of 1, 2, etc (which means if you use named it'll fail as snapshots collide). With that in mind assertSnapshots will have to call assertSnapshot instead.

We wrote these helpers in the Point-Free repo awhile back:

https://github.com/pointfreeco/pointfreeco/blob/18ec4ac7486f9c817d31e20dbebf0cc597e6adba/Sources/PointFreeTestSupport/PointFreeTestSupport.swift#L558-L603

Feel free to grab em and use em in this PR! Will be happy to merge when you do 😄

And thanks for taking the time to help!

[stephencelis]

Oh! And unfortunately we have to define these helpers twice right now (you can scroll above the last link to see them defined inside the Linux SnapshotTestCase class). Linux Foundation currently lacks the XCTWaiter APIs, so we need to use a subclass there.

[mackoj]

Ok I will fix it today. Thanks for the comment @stephencelis

[stephencelis]

Looks great!

[stephencelis]

Thanks again! 😄