Monkey patch Test.scrub_backtrace

[oxinabox]

Problem is
the @test macro is that it scrubs backtraces to remove stuff from deeper down the stack than the location of the macro, and since test_rrule etc use those macros directly the back trace no longer includes the call site in the users tests.

Simple solution is to just stop scrubbing backtraces entirely.
If people like this we could follow up with something more sophisticated.
But lets have that as a seperate PR

This does mean whenever tests are run this warning will show.

     Testing Running tests...
WARNING: Method definition scrub_backtrace(Any, Any, Any) in module Test at /home/oxinabox/dist/julia-cedar/vanilla/latest/share/julia/stdlib/v1.11/Test/src/Test.jl:89 overwritten at /home/oxinabox/JuliaEnvs/ChainRulesTestUtils.jl/src/ChainRulesTestUtils.jl:26.
Testing ChainRules.jl

Could surpress that though.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: 1 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (c421f7c) 93.65% compared to head (b7f5b0a) 93.50%.

❗ Current head b7f5b0a differs from pull request most recent head ebfe4c1. Consider uploading reports for the commit ebfe4c1 to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #287      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   93.65%   93.50%   -0.16%     
==========================================
  Files          12       12              
  Lines         347      354       +7     
==========================================
+ Hits          325      331       +6     
- Misses         22       23       +1     

Files	Coverage Δ
src/ChainRulesTestUtils.jl	88.88% <87.50%> (-11.12%)	⬇️

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

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

[oxinabox]

I tried adding a with_logger(NullLogger() around the @eval and it didn't silence the warning.
:-(

Nor did redirect_stdout(devnull) or redirect_stderr(devnull)

Suppressor.jl did get it though

[willtebbutt]

LGTM. Tested locally on some of my own code, and seems to work fine. Play nicely with Revise etc (as you would expect), so seems to be fine.