REF: test_to_latex
- [ ] closes #xxxx
- [ ] tests added / passed
- [ ] passes `black pandas`
- [ ] passes `git diff upstream/master -u -- "*.py" | flake8 --diff`
- [ ] whatsnew entry

Refactor/clean-up ``test_to_latex.py``.

- Split big test functions with multiple assertions into multiple functions
- Make readable expected strings by first indenting for the good visual appearance and then dedenting by the leading whitespace for the assertion.
yeah agree with @WillAyd comment as well. Note that would be also fine to organize these into different classes (if that's useful). same / followon ok with this

ping on green. > 
> 
> yeah agree with @WillAyd comment as well. Note that would be also fine to organize these into different classes (if that's useful). same / followon ok with this
> 
> ping on green.

Yes, I though of re-organizing the tests into separate classes. I would prefer to do that in a separate PR, after this one.

What is the policy on the test functions naming? I mean if we organize tests in the appropriate classes, then would that be necessary for us to keep ``to_latex`` in all of them? As I understand, this is useful for ``pytest .. -k to_latex`` filtering, but similarly one can run ``pytest -k ToLatex`` if all classes contain ``ToLatex`` in them.

Similarly, if we have a separate class on, let's say multiindex, then I would rather remove ``multiindex`` from the test functions as well, as the information will be available in the class name.
What do you think about it?
 thanks @ivanovmg very nice.

so a couple of things for followons.

- prefer shorter PRs, though I do get that sometimes it makes sense to change everything in one go
- we use classes for organization, i would *still* leave the `to_latex` in the test name as with pytest you could search on this as well
- using composable fixtures is nice if  you can, but again use what makes sense