You know a part of me wants to stop using individual printf statements because it's difficult for me to understand what's going on. You have the right approach of trying to follow what the code historically did, but I think it'd be better for readability to use the printTemplate method instead. What do you think? Is that easily done or is printf a better fit here?

I don't find either of them all that easy to follow, tbh. It's easier to look at the expected outputs in generator_test.go, and trust the tests to make sure all the templates and printf's are actually producing that.

Comparing before and after on one of the test cases, this PR changes this:

// Put provides a mock function with given fields: path
func (_m *RequesterReturnElided) Put(path string) (int, error) {
	ret := _m.Called(path)

	var r0 int
	if rf, ok := ret.Get(0).(func(string) int); ok {
		r0 = rf(path)
	} else {
		r0 = ret.Get(0).(int)
	}

	var r1 error
	if rf, ok := ret.Get(1).(func(string) error); ok {
		r1 = rf(path)
	} else {
		r1 = ret.Error(1)
	}

	return r0, r1
}

into this:

// Put provides a mock function with given fields: path
func (_m *RequesterReturnElided) Put(path string) (int, error) {
	ret := _m.Called(path)

	var r0 int
	var r1 error
	if rf, ok := ret.Get(0).(func(string) (int, error)); ok {
		r0, r1 = rf(path)
	} else {
		if rf, ok := ret.Get(0).(func(string) int); ok {
			r0 = rf(path)
		} else {
			r0 = ret.Get(0).(int)
		}

		if rf, ok := ret.Get(1).(func(string) error); ok {
			r1 = rf(path)
		} else {
			r1 = ret.Error(1)
		}
	}

	return r0, r1
}

And adds this to the expecter calls:

func (_c *RequesterReturnElided_Put_Call) RunAndReturn(run func(string) (int, error)) *RequesterReturnElided_Put_Call {
	_c.Call.Return(run)
	return _c
}

I think we can merge this but I would like to use the printTemplate method instead just for maintainability/readability sake. If you can make that change then I'll merge this PR. This is a really good change but that's my only ask at this point. Everything else is good.

I can try, but that's a heck of a lot more work to rewrite more of the code than what I've modified so far, and getting templates to produce exactly the same output might be pretty annoying.

This is great! Sorry, if I knew how much of a pain it would be maybe I could have let it slide but I do really enjoy the templates a lot more. At least to me, it's easier to reason about.

I'll ack this, lmk if there are any finishing touches you want to make before I merge.

I need to walk away for a bit and look at it with fresh eyes later, maybe in the morning. I'll let you know if I spot anything that could use work then.

Sounds good, thanks for the stellar work. It's really appreciated.

I think this is good to go. There was one function comment that was sort of inaccurate after I changed things, but I think the code itself is okay.

Great work, I’ll take one last look tonight and merge if everything is good. Thanks Dave.