[llvm-dev] [RFC] FileCheck: (dis)allowing unused prefixes

[David Blaikie via llvm-dev]

On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 7:30 AM Mircea Trofin via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> There are currently 1350 owner-less failures in the spreadsheet
> <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1o6q3XH1n3DDyyccnYZ_kVfhFbTDzC_S09e973_cwYuw/edit#gid=0>.
> These seem to be the larger areas there.
>
> If you see an area you have ownership or expertise in, please sign up for
> fixing the tests by Monday, Nov. 9.
>
> Otherwise, I will "blanket-add" --allow-unused-prefixes=true to the
> remaining failing tests.
>

If/when you do that, probably worth adding a comment at each site to
clarify that this was added automatically, not vetted/intentionally added
by a human. Something like "// FIXME: Verify that unused prefixes are used
intentionally" or the like.


>
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 12:48 PM Mircea Trofin <mtrofin at google.com> wrote:
>
>> An update: as of 871d658c9ceb, the flag is now available, if folks need
>> to use it.
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 10:28 AM Mircea Trofin <mtrofin at google.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> TL;DR; if you used FileCheck --check-prefixes and you missed
>>> (misspelled, for instance) one of the prefixes in your test, FileCheck
>>> silently ignores that and the test passes.
>>>
>>> 1579 tests have this property.
>>>
>>>
>>> *The details*
>>> *=========*
>>> Please refer to https://reviews.llvm.org/D90281 and the discussion
>>> there for more details (make sure you open "older changes" for full context)
>>>
>>> The problem is covered by the TL;DR;.
>>>
>>> The proposal is to add an explicit flag to FileCheck,
>>> --allow-unused-prefixes, to indicate whether the current behavior is
>>> intended (for instance, jdoerfert contributed a scenario where that is the
>>> case).
>>>
>>> We want the default behavior to be 'strict', i.e.
>>> --allow-unused-prefixes=false. Doing that right now would lead to 1500 test
>>> failures.
>>>
>>> To get there (thanks, maskray, for suggestion), we propose we:
>>> * land D90281 where the flag is introduced, but is flipped to match
>>> today's behavior
>>> * employ a 'busy beavers' approach, where test maintainers patch their
>>> tests:
>>>   - either leveraging the flag, to explicitly indicate that unused
>>> prefixes is intended (i.e. add --allow-unused-patches=true); or
>>>   - fix the test (e.g. maybe there was a misspelling issue/omission/etc).
>>>
>>> A spreadsheet with the failing tests is available here
>>> <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1o6q3XH1n3DDyyccnYZ_kVfhFbTDzC_S09e973_cwYuw/edit?usp=sharing>
>>> [1].
>>>
>>> The request to the community members is to please sign up for their
>>> respective area in the spreadsheet, and then mark it completed when that's
>>> the case (yes/no in the respective column).
>>>
>>> When all the tests are fixed, we will then flip --allow-unused-prefixes
>>> to false by default.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, please consider leveraging the flag explicitly when you
>>> author new tests that use --check-prefixes. That can be then cleaned up
>>> easily after we switch to the 'strict' behavior.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1o6q3XH1n3DDyyccnYZ_kVfhFbTDzC_S09e973_cwYuw/edit?usp=sharing
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20201105/0809e2c7/attachment.html>