[llvm-dev] dexter failures in cross-project-tests

[Adrian Prantl via llvm-dev]

> Am 10/28/21 um 12:33 PM schrieb David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>:
> 
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 10:14 AM <paul.robinson at sony.com <mailto:paul.robinson at sony.com>> wrote:
> Further research shows that no bot uses “all” targets; the bot clang-x64-windows-msvc is listed as running debuginfo-tests, but that ninja target became invalid after the move to cross-project-tests.  It’s the only bot I see in the zorg config file that has that target.  So, apparently the missing piece of work is to get that bot switched over to the new target (and make sure it’s still passing).
> 
> @rnk is listed as the owner of that bot.  With some notice, we (Sony) should be able to provide assistance if the switch doesn’t Just Work.
> 
> 
> Sure, that'd probably be good. I think Reid'd be OK if you want to commit that zorg change and check the buildbot - either undo the change or xfail the tests in some way to clean it up?
>   
> I want to apologize for all the fuss and bother here.  We do want things to be working.  Is it worth filing a PR for this?  We have an internal ticket already to get this taken care of.
> 
> 
> Not too fussed - however it's tracked. Mostly would like there not to be standing failures - so if you folks want to XFAIL them in some way in the interim. If most of the existing test coverage is on Darwin where Dexter doesn't run (can it be made to run) and one Windows buildbot - might be worth Sony working with other buildbot/configurations to get this included, and/or bringing up a public buildbot that does something similar to your internal one?
> 
> (maybe I missed it - but was your internal buildbot failing with the same problems I was seeing externally (that look like they've been there for a month or so?)? Or was it covering some different configuration that didn't hit these issues?)
>  
> Thanks,
> 
> --paulr
> 
>  
> 
> From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org>> On Behalf Of via llvm-dev
> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2021 9:18 AM
> To: dblaikie at gmail.com <mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com>; Cazalet-Hyams, Orlando <orlando.hyams at sony.com <mailto:orlando.hyams at sony.com>>; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> Cc: Weaver, Tom <Tom.Weaver at sony.com <mailto:Tom.Weaver at sony.com>>
> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] dexter failures in cross-project-tests
> 
>  
> 
> > without any buildbots running them
> 
>  
> 
> Perhaps naively, I thought cross-project-tests (which includes dexter) was part of check-all, and so would be running on any bots that used check-all.  Do bots not use check-all?  Internally it looks like our Linux build does exactly that, and I see dexter tests passing there.
> 
> 
> "targets" is a bit ambiguous - mostly when I think of a buildbot and which targets they use I'm thinking of which LLVM target backends are enabled in the build.
> In any case, no, I'm not sure whether most bots use "check-all" and while that's part of the issue, the other part is probably whether or not they enable the subproject in LLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS in the cmake configuration (not all bots build all projects - so their "check-all" is limited to whichever projects they enable). It's possible to use "all" in LLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS, but I doubt many folks do that - it pulls in a lot of stuff and would make for quite a slow buildbot, though I suppose the nature of cross-project-tests is that it's meant to use a lot of the other subprojects and so it may be appropriate to have a buildbot with "all" projects enabled and running "check-all", which should cover everything - but I think that'd take some work to cleanup - I believe (based on some recent practical experience trying to enable libcxx, libcxxabi, lldb, and cross-project-tests and running check-all and getting failures due to missing dependencies in some parts of that.
> 
> I guess partly the responsibility here also goes to Apple who added the debuginfo-tests ( +Adrian Prantl <mailto:aprantl at apple.com>  +Jonas Devlieghere <mailto:jdevlieghere at apple.com> ) - maybe they run that on green dragon. Perhaps they lost test coverage when the project was renamed & are no longer testing it? Or Perhaps debuginfo-tests had only/predominantly darwin coverage (because it was introduced by Apple folks and that's their priority) & then the dexter stuff was added as non-darwin, so came in without significant test coverage?

They are being run as part of the lldb-cmake job on green dragon: https://green.lab.llvm.org/green/view/LLDB/job/lldb-cmake/37212/consoleFull <https://green.lab.llvm.org/green/view/LLDB/job/lldb-cmake/37212/consoleFull>
However, due to a configuration mistake, they don't cause the bot to fail, even though the entire dexter/ subdirectory is broken at the moment.

+Ismail is on build wrangler duty at the moment: do you think you could figure out why they are failing (apparently they don't find the "six" python module)?

-- adrian

> 
> - Dave
> 
> The goal of providing dexter to the community was indeed to make it useful to others, which obviously includes making sure it works.  Your concerns are completely fair and we are actively trying to figure out what’s going on.
> 
> --paulr
> 
>  
> 
> From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org>> On Behalf Of David Blaikie via llvm-dev
> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2021 4:57 PM
> To: Cazalet-Hyams, Orlando <orlando.hyams at sony.com <mailto:orlando.hyams at sony.com>>
> Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>; Weaver, Tom <Tom.Weaver at sony.com <mailto:Tom.Weaver at sony.com>>
> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] dexter failures in cross-project-tests
> 
>  
> 
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 7:13 AM <orlando.hyams at sony.com <mailto:orlando.hyams at sony.com>> wrote:
> 
> Hi David,
> 
>  
> 
> > I'm trying to add some test coverage to cross-project-tests (related to the simplified template names work), and figured I'd start by making sure everything passes. I fixed some pretty printer issues (a36032345ed823414fcee0f9aed43628f4320001 - though that makes me wonder: is any buildbot running these tests, because they look like they've been failing for a while?) and then some dexter issues.
> 
>  
> 
> Apple's lldb bot (https://green.lab.llvm.org/green/view/LLDB/job/lldb-cmake <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/green.lab.llvm.org/green/view/LLDB/job/lldb-cmake__;!!JmoZiZGBv3RvKRSx!u1SYKf5CJom-1aN_QxnGYzdOu9NswlXNOxtGuYPL6blgRTBBow5XNqlH6PQZEQ5yRg$>) runs the cross-project-tests. Looking at it now though, it looks like the job status isn't affected by these tests if they fail, a bunch of the dexter feature_tests appear to contain "UNSUPPORTED: system-darwin", plus - picking a "passing" build (https://green.lab.llvm.org/green/view/LLDB/job/lldb-cmake/37155 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/green.lab.llvm.org/green/view/LLDB/job/lldb-cmake/37155__;!!JmoZiZGBv3RvKRSx!u1SYKf5CJom-1aN_QxnGYzdOu9NswlXNOxtGuYPL6blgRTBBow5XNqlH6PTLY3mMQQ$>) - a load of dexter tests fail due to environment issues. All in all I'd say that doesn't really count, and I'm not aware of any other bots running these tests.
> 
> 
> Given Sony contributed dexter and these tests - do you folks have any interest/resources invested in keeping these tests green? If not, maybe they should be removed? You can keep them to run when you want, but without any buildbots running them they don't seem sufficiently valued?
>  
> 
> > Anyone know what these dexter failures are about? The first one doesn't even seem to have the command line arguments right, which seems concerning/like something's quite broken. The second one gives not much meaningful/actionable output - and I tried running dexter directly with --verbose and seeing what it was doing (it didn't print much, but said it couldn't print the value of a local variable when it was passed to printf?), tried building the binary with the cflags that are passed to dexter and the binary ran correctly/was debuggable/I could print the value of the variable - seems like dexter could be more informative both while running under lit/the default configuration, and otherwise?
> 
>  
> 
> Looks like the first test fails because of changes in D109833 - I've put a fix up here D112624.
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks!
> 
>  
> 
>  I'm not sure about the second failure without digging in deeper. One of us (cc Tom, Jeremy) can possibly take a look on or after Friday - we could XFAIL it until we get the chance?
> 
>  
> 
> Sure, whatever works for you - seems important to not have standing failures like this one way or another.
> 
> - Dave
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> N.B. Stephen is away at the moment.
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Orlando
> 
>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20211028/b4add093/attachment.html>