Fix package_todo update comment

[gmcgibbon]

What are you trying to accomplish?

Fix update command in package TODOs.

What approach did you choose and why?

Remove the arguments from update. The update-todo subcommand with arguments has been deprecated and is no longer supported.

Type of Change

• Bugfix
• New feature
• Non-breaking change (a change that doesn't alter functionality - i.e., code refactor, configs, etc.)

Additional Release Notes

• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)

Include any notes here to include in the release description. For example, if you selected "breaking change" above, leave notes on how users can transition to this version.

If no additional notes are necessary, delete this section or leave it unchanged.

Checklist

• I have updated the documentation accordingly.
• I have added tests to cover my changes.
• It is safe to rollback this change.

[davidstosik]

I'm trying to understand where this buyers string comes from.
I understand it's interpolated from @package.name here:

packwerk/lib/packwerk/package_todo.rb

Line 99 in 128d5fc

# This file contains a list of dependencies that are not part of the long term plan for #{@package.name}.

I don't understand where it's coming from though. Should the string itself be part of this test's setup?

[exterm]

This is out of scope for this PR but I think we can make that message a bit less confusing by changing it to "the 'buyers' package".

[exterm]

I've put up a PR to follow up on that thought #323

[exterm]

As for the original topic of this thread (sorry for the derailment), it seems that the string is from the destination_package as implemented at the bottom of the file and used at the top in the setup block. It's not very obvious because of the size of the test file.

[gmcgibbon]

Yes, it is from the destination package (see the method in the test case), which would be the one with the violations. It is just confusing in the test because we use tempfiles and mock the setup a bit.