feat: update the tests to use cargo_bin! macro

[ffimnsr]

This pull request refactors the test setup in tests/cmd_test.rs to use a more idiomatic and explicit way of constructing command invocations for the mk binary. The primary change is replacing Command::cargo_bin("mk") with Command::new(cargo::cargo_bin!("mk")) across all test cases, improving clarity and consistency in how test commands are created.

Test infrastructure improvements:

• Switched from Command::cargo_bin("mk") to Command::new(cargo::cargo_bin!("mk")) in all test functions to standardize command construction and better leverage the assert_cmd::cargo utilities. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

• Added an explicit import of assert_cmd::cargo at the top of the file to support the new command construction method.

Closes: #2

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

This PR refactors the test infrastructure in tests/cmd_test.rs to use a different pattern for constructing command invocations. The change replaces Command::cargo_bin("mk")? with Command::new(cargo::cargo_bin!("mk")) across all 14 test functions.

• Standardizes command construction using the cargo::cargo_bin! macro with Command::new
• Adds an explicit import for assert_cmd::cargo module
• Updates dependency versions in Cargo.lock

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 1 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

File	Description
tests/cmd_test.rs	Refactored all test functions to use Command::new(cargo::cargo_bin!("mk")) instead of Command::cargo_bin("mk")? and added use assert_cmd::cargo import
Cargo.lock	Standard dependency version updates including assert_cmd upgrade from 2.0.17 to 2.1.1 and various other transitive dependencies

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[Copilot]

The refactoring changes the command construction from Command::cargo_bin("mk")? to Command::new(cargo::cargo_bin!("mk")), which removes error handling. The cargo_bin! macro returns a String (or &str), not a Result, so errors in locating the binary will now panic at runtime instead of being handled gracefully through the ? operator. Additionally, the function signatures still return anyhow::Result<()>, but the ? operator is no longer needed for command construction, making the return type potentially misleading. Consider whether this loss of error handling is intentional.