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

[David Blaikie via llvm-dev]

Reid and Amy might have some context for Windows (though I don't know
if any Windows folks have done much with this test suite).

On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 7:38 AM James Henderson via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev