Ux/conan output generate

[memsharded]

Changelog: Fix: Improve output messages for the generate() step.
Docs: Omit

For #19810

This is the resulting output:

I am not even sure that tabs are the best, or if we needed more headers and spacing instead.
Same for already merged:

[perseoGI]

I'm testing this branch locally with an example of a very long recipe name (issue related one) and these are the differences:

develop2 branch:

PR changes:

I'm not seeing the recipe name title on the generate step! Is that expected?

[memsharded]

I am finally going with a >>> chevron (no indents) Example:

The inner pkg/version scope for source, build, package steps hasn't been removed yet, too many tests already changed, that will follow later in other PRs.

[perseoGI]

I am finally going with a >>> chevron (no indents) Example:

I like it!

The inner pkg/version scope for source, build, package steps hasn't been removed yet, too many tests already changed, that will follow later in other PRs.

But the how is going to be displayed the pkg/version?

Is it going to be:

Generating files for <pkg/version>
<logs>

Building <pkg/version>
<logs>

?

[memsharded]

Generating files for <pkg/version>

I think more like:

>>> Build step
Building <pkg/version>
More logs ...

It depends on the context, when building a dependency the pkg/version is no longer necessary, it is already in a clear title category.

[perseoGI]

>>> Build step
Building <pkg/version>
More logs ...

Looks promising!
Something that I'm a little bit concern (also in my previous POC), is if removing the pkg/version will cause users to lose some context of what is actually doing.

But I guess this is a price to pay in order to modernice and simplify the output.

A not an easy solution for avoiding loosing the context will be to use... tachaaan "rich spinners" 🤣

[memsharded]

Something that I'm a little bit concern (also in my previous POC), is if removing the pkg/version will cause users to lose some context of what is actually doing.

I agree, this is why I think that this has to be moved forward step by step, checking the actual output UX, seeing that the context is clear, etc. From the snapshots above, it seems that information is not being lost, and the context is clear so far, and this initiative is mostly eliminating a lot of visual noise.

[perseoGI]

From the snapshots above, it seems that information is not being lost, and the context is clear so far, and this initiative is mostly eliminating a lot of visual noise.

I agree that this initiative eliminates plenty of visual noise (which is what we were looking for)
I dont know if in larger outputs we may loose the scope. Lets continue with this migration and we will see.