remove some warnings in the test outputs

[CarloLucibello]

and also some formatting changes

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Base: 86.81% // Head: 86.40% // Decreases project coverage by -0.40% ⚠️

Coverage data is based on head (0334edc) compared to base (ba48ad0).
Patch coverage: 97.67% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2143      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   86.81%   86.40%   -0.41%     
==========================================
  Files          19       19              
  Lines        1471     1471              
==========================================
- Hits         1277     1271       -6     
- Misses        194      200       +6     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/losses/functions.jl	98.64% <97.67%> (ø)
src/deprecations.jl	38.70% <0.00%> (-9.68%)	⬇️

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[CarloLucibello]

Only warnings left are of the type

┌ Warning: Wrapping a custom walk function as an `AnonymousWalk`. Future versions will only support custom walks that explicitly subtyle `AbstractWalk`.
│   caller = fmap(f::Function, x::Chain{Tuple{Dense{typeof(identity), Matrix{Float32}, Bool}, Dense{typeof(identity), Matrix{Float32}, Bool}, Dense{typeof(identity), Matrix{Float32}, Bool}}}, ys::NamedTuple{(:layers,), Tuple{Tuple{NamedTuple{(:weight, :bias, :σ), Tuple{Int64, Tuple{}, Tuple{}}}, NamedTuple{(:weight, :bias, :σ), Tuple{Int64, Tuple{}, Tuple{}}}, NamedTuple{(:weight, :bias, :σ), Tuple{Int64, Tuple{}, Tuple{}}}}}}; exclude::Function, walk::Function, cache::IdDict{Any, Any}, prune::Functors.NoKeyword) at maps.jl:7

I still have to investigate where they come from

[CarloLucibello]

merge?

[mcabbott]

Either this or #2139 is going to be a fun rebase, sadly.

Are there any other PRs similarly affected? That (and git blame) are the objections to fixing white-space extensively, without other reasons for change.

[ToucheSir]

The issue with blame can be fixed via specifying ignored revs. Metalhead already does this. It's also why it makes sense to batch formatting changes where possible and ensure future code remains formatted.