Add smoke test to stress tests

[ChumpChief]

This PR does 3 things:

1. Splits nodeStressTest.ts and utils.ts up some, into smaller, single-purpose files.
2. Starts to consolidate process exit paths back up at the main() function. There's more to do here and I'd like to continue in a subsequent PR, but this PR is fairly large already.
3. Most importantly, adds a simple smoke test that runs before the real stress tests.

The motivation for the smoke test is that the FRS Canary stress tests have been failing for a while (and yes, need investigation still), but additionally each failure is taking the full 2 hours to time out. This smoke test aims to help them fail faster, since it's immediately apparent we aren't able to create and/or load a container (getting 504 errors currently). With this change, I'd expect the FRS Canary run to fail in ~2 minutes instead.

AB#9092

[msfluid-bot]

⯅ @fluid-example/bundle-size-tests: +245 Bytes

Metric Name	Baseline Size	Compare Size	Size Diff
aqueduct.js	457.99 KB	458.02 KB	⯅ +35 Bytes
azureClient.js	555.23 KB	555.28 KB	⯅ +49 Bytes
connectionState.js	680 Bytes	680 Bytes	■ No change
containerRuntime.js	258.67 KB	258.68 KB	⯅ +14 Bytes
fluidFramework.js	406.94 KB	406.95 KB	⯅ +14 Bytes
loader.js	134.04 KB	134.05 KB	⯅ +14 Bytes
map.js	42.13 KB	42.14 KB	⯅ +7 Bytes
matrix.js	146.41 KB	146.42 KB	⯅ +7 Bytes
odspClient.js	523.37 KB	523.42 KB	⯅ +49 Bytes
odspDriver.js	97.55 KB	97.57 KB	⯅ +21 Bytes
odspPrefetchSnapshot.js	42.61 KB	42.62 KB	⯅ +14 Bytes
sharedString.js	163.13 KB	163.14 KB	⯅ +7 Bytes
sharedTree.js	397.45 KB	397.46 KB	⯅ +7 Bytes
Total Size	3.3 MB	3.3 MB	⯅ +245 Bytes

---

Baseline commit: ac3948a7e18981f3fe8496c296d20443f9ce3d62

Generated by :no_entry_sign: dangerJS against 13fe6516f49e8e4ddd853bf4a1d2eb5bd6fd11f8

[anthony-murphy]

can this PR be split apart, such that refactoring and new functionality are in different PRs to make review easier. I also think the refactoring in fine, but the new functionality will need further discussion.

[azure-boards[bot]]

✅ Successfully linked to Azure Boards work item(s):

• Task 9092

[ChumpChief]

can this PR be split apart, such that refactoring and new functionality are in different PRs to make review easier. I also think the refactoring in fine, but the new functionality will need further discussion.

I can probably do that - if you have feedback on the new functionality please go ahead though, happy to start considering in parallel.

[ChumpChief]

can this PR be split apart, such that refactoring and new functionality are in different PRs to make review easier. I also think the refactoring in fine, but the new functionality will need further discussion.

I can probably do that - if you have feedback on the new functionality please go ahead though, happy to start considering in parallel.

First split piece: #21997

[ChumpChief]

can this PR be split apart, such that refactoring and new functionality are in different PRs to make review easier. I also think the refactoring in fine, but the new functionality will need further discussion.

I can probably do that - if you have feedback on the new functionality please go ahead though, happy to start considering in parallel.

First split piece: #21997

Second split piece: #22002

[ChumpChief]

22006 supersedes this PR, closing.