Added environment variable GAZEBO_SUPPRESS_EOL_WARNING that disables EOL notices.

[peci1]

🎉 New feature

Closes https://github.com/gazebosim/gazebo-classic/pull/3405#issuecomment-2480484097

Summary

Added environment variable GAZEBO_SUPPRESS_EOL_WARNING. If set to 1, the EOL notice added in #3405 will not be shown.

Test it

Launch Gazebo and check for the notices both in console and in menubar.

The notice in About screen has been left untouched intentionally.

Checklist

• [ ] Signed all commits for DCO
• [ ] Added tests
• [ ] Added example and/or tutorial
• [ ] Updated documentation (as needed)
• [ ] Updated migration guide (as needed)
• [ ] Consider updating Python bindings (if the library has them)
• [ ] codecheck passed (See contributing)
• [ ] All tests passed (See test coverage)
• [ ] While waiting for a review on your PR, please help review another open pull request to support the maintainers

Note to maintainers: Remember to use Squash-Merge and edit the commit message to match the pull request summary while retaining Signed-off-by messages.

[traversaro]

The vcpkg failure seems unrelated (fyi @talregev).

[peci1]

Is it possible that test failure https://build.osrfoundation.org/job/gazebo-ci-pr_any-ubuntu_auto-amd64-gpu-nvidia/1256/testReport/(root)/gzTest/SDF/ here was actually caused by #3405? The Ubuntu test was skipped in its latest CI.

I think the checksum might have changed due to the EOL notice. Maybe it isn't a good idea to print the EOL notice in gz sdf output?

[j-rivero]

I think the checksum might have changed due to the EOL notice. Maybe it isn't a good idea to print the EOL notice in gz sdf output?

Building Gazebo I don't see any notice using the gz tool. Also I think that it does not share code changed in https://github.com/gazebosim/gazebo-classic/pull/3405 . The gzSDF test has been traditionally quite fragile to changes in sdformat, I vote to omit the failing in this PR and takes care of it in different PRs or issues (if someone wants to do it).

[peci1]

Ok, thanks for the input. I was wondering, because running gz sdf locally, I did not get any of the two hashes reported in the failed test...