livecheck: refactor livecheck_strategy_names

[samford]

• Have you followed the guidelines in our Contributing document?
• Have you checked to ensure there aren't other open Pull Requests for the same change?
• Have you added an explanation of what your changes do and why you'd like us to include them?
• Have you written new tests for your changes? Here's an example.
• Have you successfully run brew style with your changes locally?
• Have you successfully run brew typecheck with your changes locally?
• Have you successfully run brew tests with your changes locally?

---

This refactors the livecheck_strategy_names method to align with Doug's livecheck_find_versions_parameters implementation in #19312 (which is currently part of the Options PR).

[dduugg]

lgtm, though it'd be nice if we could cover all of it with tests

[samford]

Unless I'm overlooking something, livecheck_strategy_names should be fully covered by the tests. The lower coverage number for the patch comes from the changes in other livecheck/livecheck.rb methods.

I'm ignoring the other untested areas for now, as I'm planning to improve test coverage for livecheck/livecheck.rb after some planned refactoring (I have a few PRs to work through first). I've recently been working on maximizing test coverage in all the other parts of livecheck and some of my upcoming PRs (after Options) will bring test coverage up to 100% with the exception of livecheck/livecheck.rb and maybe livecheck_version.rb (I haven't been able to figure out how to test some parts of LivecheckVersion#<==>, so it's stuck at 92.11% line coverage and 86.67% branch coverage).

Besides that, I've also been working on expanding typed: strong support. livecheck/livecheck.rb is going to take the most work, so I'm also deferring that until after refactoring. I'm not yet sure if typed: strong will be entirely feasible in that file but I'm planning to do as much as possible.

Long story short, the end goal is to have as much covered as possible but it's a work in progress (and not something that I want to dig into in this PR when the other changes are minimal).

[dduugg]

Thanks for elaborating. To be clear, I was only referring to the codecov comment.