chore: nargo info now prints information as a prettified table

[Ethan-000]

Description

Problem*

Related to #2089

Summary*

run nargo info

fn main(x : Field, y : pub Field) {
    assert(x * 2 == y * 3);
}

contract Foo {
    fn double(x: Field) -> pub Field { x * 2 }
    fn triple(x: Field) -> pub Field { x * 3 }
    internal fn quadruple(x: Field) -> pub Field { x * 4 }
    open internal fn skibbidy(x: Field) -> pub Field { x * 5 }
}

+----------+-----------+------------------------+--------------+----------------------+
| Contract | Function  | Language               | ACIR Opcodes | Backend Circuit Size |
+----------+-----------+------------------------+--------------+----------------------+
| Foo      | quadruple | PLONKCSat { width: 3 } | 1            | 2                    |
+----------+-----------+------------------------+--------------+----------------------+
| Foo      | double    | PLONKCSat { width: 3 } | 1            | 2                    |
+----------+-----------+------------------------+--------------+----------------------+
| Foo      | triple    | PLONKCSat { width: 3 } | 1            | 2                    |
+----------+-----------+------------------------+--------------+----------------------+
| Foo      | skibbidy  | PLONKCSat { width: 3 } | 1            | 1                    |
+----------+-----------+------------------------+--------------+----------------------+

Additional Context

PR Checklist*

• I have tested the changes locally.
• I have formatted the changes with Prettier and/or cargo fmt on default settings.

[TomAFrench]

Table looks good but you've made the compile_success integration tests much less strict.

[TomAFrench]

Currently if you use this in a workspace you get the output

+---------+------------------------+--------------+----------------------+
| Package | Language               | ACIR Opcodes | Backend Circuit Size |
+---------+------------------------+--------------+----------------------+
| a       | PLONKCSat { width: 3 } | 5            | 5                    |
+---------+------------------------+--------------+----------------------+
+---------+------------------------+--------------+----------------------+
| Package | Language               | ACIR Opcodes | Backend Circuit Size |
+---------+------------------------+--------------+----------------------+
| b       | PLONKCSat { width: 3 } | 5            | 5                    |
+---------+------------------------+--------------+----------------------+

Ideally this would be merged as so:

+---------+------------------------+--------------+----------------------+
| Package | Language               | ACIR Opcodes | Backend Circuit Size |
+---------+------------------------+--------------+----------------------+
| a       | PLONKCSat { width: 3 } | 5            | 5                    |
+---------+------------------------+--------------+----------------------+
| b       | PLONKCSat { width: 3 } | 5            | 5                    |
+---------+------------------------+--------------+----------------------+

Similarly we should collect contracts across different packages and collate them into the same table.

[TomAFrench]

See comment

[kevaundray]

Currently if you use this in a workspace you get the output

+---------+------------------------+--------------+----------------------+
| Package | Language               | ACIR Opcodes | Backend Circuit Size |
+---------+------------------------+--------------+----------------------+
| a       | PLONKCSat { width: 3 } | 5            | 5                    |
+---------+------------------------+--------------+----------------------+
+---------+------------------------+--------------+----------------------+
| Package | Language               | ACIR Opcodes | Backend Circuit Size |
+---------+------------------------+--------------+----------------------+
| b       | PLONKCSat { width: 3 } | 5            | 5                    |
+---------+------------------------+--------------+----------------------+

Ideally this would be merged as so:

+---------+------------------------+--------------+----------------------+
| Package | Language               | ACIR Opcodes | Backend Circuit Size |
+---------+------------------------+--------------+----------------------+
| a       | PLONKCSat { width: 3 } | 5            | 5                    |
+---------+------------------------+--------------+----------------------+
| b       | PLONKCSat { width: 3 } | 5            | 5                    |
+---------+------------------------+--------------+----------------------+

Similarly we should collect contracts across different packages and collate them into the same table.

Why do we want this to be merged?

[Ethan-000]

I suppose depends on whether in a workspace, can different packages be compiled to different languages?

[Ethan-000]

is it better to also add some coloring to this table

[Ethan-000]

now print something like this 😂

[Ethan-000]

(i can remove the colour if it is not prefered)

[kevaundray]

now print something like this 😂

How does this print for contracts across different packages (per Tom's comment)?

[kevaundray]

I suppose depends on whether in a workspace, can different packages be compiled to different languages?

I think its a matter of preference, so rationale for preferences would be good

[Ethan-000]

now print something like this 😂

How does this print for contracts across different packages (per Tom's comment)?

workspace packages

workspace contract

[Ethan-000]

if there are two contracts and one package in workspace

[TomAFrench]

LGTM

[kevaundray]

oof sorry @TomAFrench seems there was a race condition with changing the PR title 😁