[llvm-dev] [RFC] Cross-project lit test suite

[James Henderson via llvm-dev]

Given that the debuginfo tests already have cross-project dependencies, I
figured I'd try adapting them instead. I've updated
https://reviews.llvm.org/D95339 accordingly. Ideally, I think making the
existing debug-info tests a subdirectory, and renaming the top-level
directory, might be a good idea, but I haven't really come to any
conclusions about that yet.

I also found that several of the existing debuginfo-test tests fail for me.
Are these tests expected to work on Windows? If so, are there any slightly
more unusual prerequisites that I might be missing?

What do people think?

James

On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 at 15:40, <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote:

>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of David
> Greene
> > via llvm-dev
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 10:29 AM
> > To: jh7370.2008 at my.bristol.ac.uk; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] Cross-project lit test suite
> >
> > James Henderson via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes:
> >
> > > Currently, there is no location where lit tests that use both clang and
> > LLD
> > > can be put, whilst the llvm-symbolizer cases I’ve hit are testing
> > > llvm-symbolizer (and not LLD), so don’t really fit in the LLD test
> > suite. I
> > > therefore have prototyped a lit test suite that would be part of the
> > > monorepo, and which can support tests that use elements from multiple
> > > projects - see
> >
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://reviews.llvm.org/D95339__;!!JmoZiZGBv3
> >
> RvKRSx!vWidWrbKJid6-eIKVUT-dGDzcG-65TMZMzhyd33jgyBwi7p-JRSgFVZkxqKCvkqW4A$
> > . Tests could be added to
> > > this suite as needed. The suite is modelled as an additional top-level
> > > directory, and is enabled by enabling the “cross-project-tests” project
> > in
> > > CMake.
> >
> > This is fantastic!
> >
> > > Back in October 2019, there was an extensive discussion on end-to-end
> > > testing and how to write them (starting from
> > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-
> > dev/2019-October/063509.html__;!!JmoZiZGBv3RvKRSx!vWidWrbKJid6-eIKVUT-
> > dGDzcG-65TMZMzhyd33jgyBwi7p-JRSgFVZkxqJU8k_M_Q$ ).
> > > The suggestion was that these tests would be lit-based and run as part
> > > of check-all, and would not be inside the clang tree, although there
> > > was some opposition. This concluded with a round table. Unfortunately,
> > > I am unaware of what the conclusion of that round table conversation
> > > was, so it’s possible that what I am proposing is redundant/being
> > > worked on by someone else.
> >
> > I started that thread and IIRC we ended up with the suggestion that such
> > tests should live in test-suite.  As you noted having tests separated
> > from the monorepo is less than ideal.  I haven't done anything with this
> > conclusion yet, mostly due to lack of time.  If your proposal gains
> > traction I would like to see if we could build end-to-end testing on top
> > of it.
> >
> > > Additionally, I don’t consider all classes of tests that the proposed
> > > lit suite would be useful for to be “end-to-end” testing.
> >
> > Agreed.  There are various classes of tests that could make use of your
> > proposed layout, one of which is "end-to-end."  Your proposal doesn't
> > provide end-to-end testing per se, but it does make adding end-to-end
> > tests later on more straightforward.
> >
> >              -David
>
> I think a useful distinction here is that lit tests are generally very
> focused on a specific feature/function, where test-suite has a much
> broader scope.  Another slice at it would be that lit tests tend to be
> "regression" tests, while test-suite is more of an "integration" suite.
>
> I am not a QA person so I may be abusing some of these terms, but that's
> how I look at it.  Sometimes writing that focused lit test ends up
> depending on multiple tools, and the cross-project lit suite would be a
> good place to drop those; debuginfo-tests is a prime example.
> --paulr
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20210205/026d6d67/attachment.html>