service:list in CLI

[mayakoneval]

This PR adds service:list to the Apollo CLI tool, printing out the lists in a federated services like so:

Open questions:

• is copy / pasting the functions uncaptureApplicationOutput and captureApplicationOutput necessary / how do you share those testing helpers with the shared console log? (resolved - see comment below)

TODO:

• Update CHANGELOG.md* with your change (include reference to issue & this PR)
• Make sure all of the significant new logic is covered by tests
• Rebase your changes on master so that they can be merged easily
• Make sure all tests and linter rules pass

*Make sure changelog entries note which project(s) has been affected. See older entries for examples on what this looks like.

[apollo-cla]

@mayakoneval: Thank you for submitting a pull request! Before we can merge it, you'll need to sign the Meteor Contributor Agreement here: https://contribute.meteor.com/

[mayakoneval]

this and the following function are copied from check.test.ts I am not sure how to share them with a shared console.log. They currently mock the console log output, save it and check it against the snapshot. I think these functions should be shared helper methods between all CLI tests, however when sharing them, since jest runs the tests in parallel (between files), the mocking gets overwritten. Would appreciate ideas!

[zionts]

hmmm... I think this would actually hugely benefit from passing in a custom logger to the entirety of the apollo CLI. Probably a feature we should log somewhere, if it's not already. That way you can just instantiate the tests with a writeToMap logger that stores the log output in an array under the test name or something.

[trevor-scheer]

@zionts, agree on both fronts - definitely a feature we should consider adding. In the meantime, @mayakoneval can you add comments in both places that this code is duplicated by necessity? Enough to provide some context for future implementors, as they may have to do the same thing.

[zionts]

Generally looks good! Liking the added tests and the format of the output feels like just the right amount of detail to me. This is just a fly-by review since you said you were blocked. Please ping me if you want me to take another look :)

[zionts]

I thought people preferred the spread operator thing now, but idk things

[trevor-scheer]

@zionts, agree on both fronts - definitely a feature we should consider adding. In the meantime, @mayakoneval can you add comments in both places that this code is duplicated by necessity? Enough to provide some context for future implementors, as they may have to do the same thing.