Fire skipped events at debug level

[nevdelap]

Resolves #8774. Picking up from Scott Gigantes #9371. Scott's not had the time to finish it off and has suggested I take a look.

TODO

• Set up my dev env to reproduce the issue using this clone locally installed, and see it fixed with the patch. ✔️
• Learn about contributing to this project. ✔️
• Resolve the issues described in the PR. ✔️

Problem

If fail_fast, dbt prints hundreds of lines "Skipping due to fail_fast", hiding the actual cause of the error deep in bash history (sometimes too deep to read)

Solution

This moves the "Skipping due to fail_fast" to log level DEBUG. An alternative would be to a) drop it altogether or b) aggregate the results together to a "Skipping tasks due to fail_fast". This approach requires the least modification to the task results framework.

Checklist

• I have read the contributing guide and understand what's expected of me
• I have run this code in development and it appears to resolve the stated issue
• This PR includes tests, or tests are not required/relevant for this PR
• This PR has no interface changes (e.g. macros, cli, logs, json artifacts, config files, adapter interface, etc) or this PR has already received feedback and approval from Product or DX
• This PR includes type annotations for new and modified functions

[cla-bot]

Thanks for your pull request, and welcome to our community! We require contributors to sign our Contributor License Agreement and we don't seem to have your signature on file. Check out this article for more information on why we have a CLA.

In order for us to review and merge your code, please submit the Individual Contributor License Agreement form attached above above. If you have questions about the CLA, or if you believe you've received this message in error, please reach out through a comment on this PR.

CLA has not been signed by users: @nevdelap

[cla-bot]

Thanks for your pull request, and welcome to our community! We require contributors to sign our Contributor License Agreement and we don't seem to have your signature on file. Check out this article for more information on why we have a CLA.

In order for us to review and merge your code, please submit the Individual Contributor License Agreement form attached above above. If you have questions about the CLA, or if you believe you've received this message in error, please reach out through a comment on this PR.

CLA has not been signed by users: @nevdelap

[QMalcolm]

@nevdelap Let me know if you need any guidance or want to pair to get this across the line 🙂

[nevdelap]

Thanks @QMalcolm. I expect I'll do some more on Monday. I see your link to where the tests are likely to go. If I have any trouble I'll ping you. 👍

CLA signed.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 44.44444% with 5 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 63.22%. Comparing base (a677abd) to head (28ac6d7).
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Files	Patch %	Lines
core/dbt/task/printer.py	44.44%	5 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #10244       +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   88.72%   63.22%   -25.51%     
===========================================
  Files         180      180               
  Lines       22463    22470        +7     
===========================================
- Hits        19931    14207     -5724     
- Misses       2532     8263     +5731     

Flag	Coverage Δ
integration	?
unit	63.22% <44.44%> (-0.02%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[QMalcolm]

Thanks for signing the CLA - @cla-bot check

[cla-bot]

The cla-bot has been summoned, and re-checked this pull request!

[QMalcolm]

For documentation purposes:

As mentioned on the PR by @scottgigante (#9371), what we need to do before merging this is add a test for the added functionality to ensure we don't regress in the future.

In the test(s) we should:

• assert that Skipping due to fail_fast doesn't appear in the output if --fail-fast is specified but --debug is not
• assert that Skipping due to fail_fast does appear in the ouput if both --fail-fast and --debug are specified

Here are some examples of tests that something exists in the run output. Additionally a good place for the test would be in test_fail_fast_run.py

[nevdelap]

@QMalcolm I've added a couple of tests. Looking at how and where to put any tests in test_fail_fast_run.py. I think it doesn't invoke the cli in a way that captures what ends up in stdout because it uses dbtRunner rather than CliRunner, and so might perhaps need more involved changes to expose its output. So maybe the tests that I've added are sufficient? Let me know if you'd like me to look harder into making test_fail_fast_run.py able to see what it needs to see to test this. 🙏

[nevdelap]

I see Test Log Schema tests failed because they're doing something slightly different than running the test by itself does, so I'll look at that. Done

The Integration Tests against the different Python versions on different platforms failed for dependency version differences that are unrelated to these changes.

[nevdelap]

I'll change this to a plain 'in' test.

[QMalcolm]

Thanks for doing this work, it looks great 🙂

[scottgigante]

Thanks @nevdelap for picking up where I left off!

[scottgigante]

Closes #9371

[QMalcolm]

Our codecov check is complaining. However, it's results don't really make sense. I'm gonna move forward with getting this merged.

[nevdelap]

Thanks @scottgigante, thanks @QMalcolm!