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

Tue Jan 26 11:26:02 PST 2021

On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 11:08 AM Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Jan 26, 2021, at 10:38 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 4:50 AM James Henderson <
> jh7370.2008 at my.bristol.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 at 00:28, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 4:20 PM Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 12:16 PM David Blaikie via llvm-dev <
>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 3:36 AM James Henderson via llvm-dev
>>>>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Dear all,
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Recently, I and a number of my colleagues have run into cases where
>>>>> we would like the ability to write tests that involve components from
>>>>> multiple LLVM projects, for example using both clang and LLD. Similarly, I
>>>>> have seen a few instances recently where tests would ideally make use of
>>>>> LLD but only to help generate input objects for testing an LLVM tool, such
>>>>> as llvm-symbolizer (see for example https://reviews.llvm.org/D88988).
>>>>> 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://reviews.llvm.org/D95339. 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. I have initially added support for both LLD and clang. At
>>>>> configuration time, the tests that require LLD or clang will only be
>>>>> enabled when the respective projects are enabled, so that developers
>>>>> continue to benefit from the subset of tests that are applicable for the
>>>>> projects they are building. Note that I am not especially familiar with
>>>>> CMake or lit, so this code may not be perfect, but it should be sufficient
>>>>> to demonstrate what it can do.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > One could argue that these sorts of tests should belong in the
>>>>> external (to the monorepo) test-suite, but this is a) quite distant from
>>>>> the existing testing, and therefore easily forgotten, delaying potential
>>>>> feedback for any breakages/resulting in potentially duplicate testing etc,
>>>>> and b) is not as easy to set up and run (owing to the fact that it isn’t
>>>>> part of the monorepo, isn’t connected to check-all etc), therefore making
>>>>> it harder for developers to maintain the tests. Back in October 2019, there
>>>>> was an extensive discussion on end-to-end testing and how to write them
>>>>> (starting from
>>>>> https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2019-October/063509.html).
>>>>> 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. Additionally, I don’t consider all classes of tests that the proposed
>>>>> lit suite would be useful for to be “end-to-end” testing. For example,
>>>>> llvm-symbolizer is usually used on linked output containing debug
>>>>> information. Usually tests that consume objects that have debug data in
>>>>> them rely on assembly that has been written by hand or generated by clang
>>>>> prior to commit, with a limited set able to make use of yaml2obj to
>>>>> generate the debug data instead. However, the output of these approaches is
>>>>> typically not a fully linked output (yaml2obj output can be made to look
>>>>> like one, but getting all the addresses to match up in a maintainable
>>>>> manner makes this approach not particularly viable). Being able to use LLD
>>>>> to link the object file produced would make the test significantly more
>>>>> readable, much as using llvm-mc and assembly to generate test inputs is
>>>>> more preferable to using prebuilt binaries. Such a test is ultimately not
>>>>> really any more an end-to-end test than an llvm-symbolizer test that just
>>>>> uses the object produced by the assembler directly.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > What do people think?
>>>>>
>>>>> Some concerns (the usual: Things should be tested in isolation, things
>>>>> should be tested independently - but end to end tests have some value
>>>>> too), but generally seems good.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Indeed this is a usual concern: such tests shouldn't be seen
>>>> as replacing isolated lit tests ("unit tests").
>>>>
>>>
>> I completely agree. Indeed, the llvm-symbolizer test referenced in the
>> review I'd class as an isolated test - LLD was just being used to generate
>> the input for the test. The key here is that the thing being tested was the
>> llvm-symbolizer behaviour, and not the linker behaviour. As mentioned, this
>> isn't really different to how llvm-mc or llc might be used to convert some
>> input source (asm/IR etc) into something the tool under test wants to be
>> run on. Potentially, changes in those tools might break things, but as long
>> as the input is specific enough, this shouldn't happen often.
>>
>> But I have another question about the cost of maintenance here: are we
>>>> gonna revert patches to either project when one of the integration tests
>>>> fails?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Possibly, yeah. If they demonstrate a bug.
>>>
>>
>> That would be my intention - these tests should be classed as first-class
>> citizens as much as any other lit test. They're just unit tests that use
>> other components (LLD, clang etc) to generate inputs.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> What about integration tests that require to be updated manually when
>>>> changing another component?
>>>>
>>>
>>> If they need to be updated, because their failure isn't representative
>>> of a bug, yes.
>>>
>>
>> Hopefully these sorts of failures would occur only infrequently. As
>> noted, my aim here isn't to provide a place in opensource LLVM to do
>> integration testing, but rather unit tests that just can't sit in the
>> corresponding lit area, so input variability should be minimal.
>>
>> That being said, the proposed suite could be used for integration
>> testing, if the community agreed such testing belonged in the monorepo -
>> indeed, I have plans for some downstream integration tests that would make
>> use of this if it lands - but that isn't the goal here.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I find the cost of maintenance of end-to-end tests is often hard to
>>>> carry over, especially since they are only supplementing and not replacing
>>>> lit "unit-tests".
>>>>
>>>
>>> One of the nice thing about end to end tests (as with all tests, if
>>> designed carefully - eg: don't take some arbitrary code, compile it with
>>> optimizations, and expect a very specific backtrace - optimizations might
>>> lead to different line table/stack frame details (if some code was merged,
>>> or moved, it might lose or gain a specific source file/line)) is that they
>>> can be pretty resilient to implementation details, so less likely to need
>>> updating due to changes in implementation details. If someone changes the
>>> output format of llvm-symbolizer these would require updating and I think
>>> it'd be reasonable to expect that to be updated/not left failing.
>>>
>>
>> Right, just as we would change other tests for tools where the output
>> format changed.
>>
>>
>>> - Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mehdi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Though perhaps debuginfo-tests (this presumably already supports the
>>>>> multiple-subproject mechanical isssue you're discussing?) could be
>>>>> generalized/renamed to be all our cross-project lit testing
>>>>> (Essentially an in-monorepo, lit-only, high-reliability/not-flakey/etc
>>>>> version of the test-suite).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> The existing debug-info test area looks like it could work if it was more
>> generalised. It looks like we'd want the ability to have tests that would
>> still work without clang/lldb being built, and similarly which could use
>> LLD, but I don't think those are insurmountable issues - it would just
>> require taking some of the ideas from my existing prototype (or equivalent
>> from elsewhere) and merging them in.
>>
>
> Sounds good to me - might want some buy-in from other debuginfo-tests
> folks, though.
>
>
> I don't mind generalizing debuginfo-tests to support more use-cases, but I
> have some very practical concerns: Because of the hardware constraints on
> green-dragon (currently a single Intel Mac Mini running all LLDB tests) I
> would like to avoid getting into a situation where we need to build more
> than clang+lldb in order to run the debuginfo-tests. I also don't want to
> have to run more than the debuginfo tests on that bot. So as long as a
> separate "check-..." target is used and the bots keep working, I'm fine
> with this.
>

Build design question: How would you feel if it was the same check- target,
but it dynamically chose what to run based on which projects were checked
out/being built? I'm not sure if that's a good design or not, but having a
combinatorial set of explicit check-* names based on which projects are
enabled would seem unfortunaet.

(though, inversely - if some set of tests (like the existing debug info
ones) are in a subdirectory, and like the current check-llvm-debuginfo-*
etc where you can specify a target that's a subdirectory, would mean you
coudl run just the debuginfo ones - that wouldn't be so bad, but maybe we'd
eventually have tests under there that might require lld for instance - and
it'd still be nice for those tests to degrade gracefully to "unsupported"
if you weren't building lld (similarly, if you aren't building clang, the
existing debuginfo tests could degrade to "unsupported"))
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20210126/4628ce1e/attachment.html>