Allow tests to be quiet

What does this MR do?

Our tests print a lot of repetitive guff that is helpful in debugging circumstances, but otherwise gets in the way. This change allows (opt-in) for a developer to turn off these messages by setting GITLAB_TESTING_QUIET to anything other than "false".

Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?

Conformity

• Changelog entry
• Documentation (if required)
• Code review guidelines
• Merge request performance guidelines
• Style guides
• Database guides
• Separation of EE specific content

Availability and Testing

This does not change any tests or their results, only what it printed. It is off by default, and must be explicitly enabled.

marked the checklist item Changelog entry as completed

added backstage [DEPRECATED] test labels

changed the description

	1 Warning
	This merge request does not refer to an existing milestone.

Reviewer roulette

Changes that require review have been detected! A merge request is normally reviewed by both a reviewer and a maintainer in its primary category (e.g. frontend or backend), and by a maintainer in all other categories.

To spread load more evenly across eligible reviewers, Danger has randomly picked a candidate for each review slot. Feel free to override these selections if you think someone else would be better-suited, or the chosen person is unavailable.

To read more on how to use the reviewer roulette, please take a look at the Engineering workflow and code review guidelines.

Once you've decided who will review this merge request, mention them as you normally would! Danger does not (yet?) automatically notify them for you.

Category	Reviewer	Maintainer
Engineering Productivity for CI, Danger	Mark Fletcher (@markglenfletcher)	Markus Koller (@toupeira)
backend	Robert May (@robotmay)	Markus Koller (@toupeira)

If needed, you can retry the danger-review job that generated this comment.

Generated by Danger

added 74 commits

• 5dfde718...89b3e1dc - 73 commits from branch master
• 0773894e - Allow tests to be quiet

Compare with previous version

@caalberts, @brodock - could you both take a look at this small developer quality-of-life improvement? This allows developer to silence component set up messages when running rspec.

added workflowin review label

assigned to @caalberts and @brodock

Setting groupknowledge based on @alexkalderimis's group.

added 1 deleted label

unassigned @caalberts

added 82 commits

• 0773894e...8589dd50 - 80 commits from branch master
• c2ef3c78 - Allow tests to be quiet
• c8e4351c - Use a logger to manage visibility

Compare with previous version

assigned to @caalberts

resolved all threads

I may have a different take on this... I prefer we not hide what is taking unnecessary time. I believe the best alternative would be to try to move those setup tasks like the one in gitaly to somewhere else, like GDK update routine.

I have had too many trouble with this design pattern of trying to "configure/install/setup/check/verify" the environment before running specs, which is fine for CI, but a really pain when running single spec files on our development machine.

(One way to make this work fine with GDK is to extract all those operations into a rake task like spec:dependencies and add that to update related tasks in GDK).

This change really doesn't have anything to do with slow test setup, but rather just eliminating repetitive noise. When I run tests, during development, the ten-twenty lines of setup are just visual distraction and take up valuable vertical space. While I agree that a more thorough solution would be ideal, I aimed at doing the smallest thing that could possibly work, and employ a boring solution to solve this problem for everyone.

added 678 commits

• c8e4351c...dee867c1 - 675 commits from branch master
• 1e9ee65f - Allow tests to be quiet
• acb4529e - Use a logger to manage visibility
• 41575280 - Reduce conditional logging usage

Compare with previous version

added 1 commit

• d916c872 - Reduce conditional logging usage

Compare with previous version

added 1 commit

• d13aa93f - Reduce conditional logging usage

Compare with previous version

unassigned @caalberts

Any thoughts on this @brodock - or should I close this?

@alexkalderimis two small suggestions

unassigned @brodock

assigned to @brodock

added 1671 commits

• d13aa93f...570ddb1c - 1667 commits from branch master
• 2d8a731d - Allow tests to be quiet
• befcbbe7 - Use a logger to manage visibility
• c2e05dad - Reduce conditional logging usage
• 400b13e3 - Place custom set-up in the correct place

Compare with previous version

added 1 commit

• 903d2e6a - Place custom set-up in the correct place

Compare with previous version

added 6 commits

• 903d2e6a...e490bbd5 - 2 commits from branch master
• f7b8b5bb - Allow tests to be quiet
• a7b8af61 - Use a logger to manage visibility
• dff4e06f - Reduce conditional logging usage
• ac118483 - Place custom set-up in the correct place

Compare with previous version

approved this merge request

unassigned @brodock

Hi @rspeicher - could you take a look at this small quality-of-life MR by providing a backend maintainer review?

assigned to @rspeicher

unassigned @rspeicher

added 1 commit

• 2ebbee6e - Apply 1 suggestion(s) to 1 file(s)

Compare with previous version

assigned to @rspeicher

added 196 commits

• 2ebbee6e...c3caf581 - 191 commits from branch master
• a771a530 - Allow tests to be quiet
• 0a2225c0 - Use a logger to manage visibility
• 04adda80 - Reduce conditional logging usage
• ba5af16c - Place custom set-up in the correct place
• 716cf3ce - Remove intermediate constants

Compare with previous version

resolved all threads

@alexkalderimis Test failure looks legit.

unassigned @rspeicher

added 1 commit

• 862af2ba - Remove intermediate constants

Compare with previous version

Sorry for the broken test. I thought I had tested locally, but obviously not. It is interesting how different the setup environment is from the application environment - back to you @rspeicher!

assigned to @rspeicher

marked the checklist item Documentation (if required) as completed

marked the checklist item Merge request performance guidelines as completed

marked the checklist item Code review guidelines as completed

marked the checklist item Style guides as completed

marked the checklist item Database guides as completed

marked the checklist item Separation of EE specific content as completed

approved this merge request

@alexkalderimis LGTM, thanks!

merged

mentioned in commit 9a7b4506

added workflowstaging label and removed workflowin review label

added workflowcanary label and removed workflowstaging label

added workflowproduction label and removed workflowcanary label

changed the description

changed milestone to %13.2