test: improve test infrastructure #554
Conversation
This change represents a rather large re-design in how `wasi-libc` builds and runs its tests. Initially, WebAssembly#346 retrieved the `libc-test` repository and built a subset of those tests to give us some amount of test coverage. Later, because there was no way to add custom C tests, WebAssembly#522 added a `smoke` directory which allowed this. But (a) each of these test suites was built and run separately and (b) it was unclear how to add more tests flexibly--some tests should only run on `*p2` targets or `*-threads` targets, e.g. This change reworks all of this so that all tests are built the same way, in the same place. For downloaded tests like those from `libc-test`, I chose to add "stub tests" that `#include` the original version. This not only keeps all enabled tests in one place, it also allows us to add "directives," C comments that the `Makefile` uses to filter out tests for certain targets or add special compile, link or run flags. These rudimentary scripts, along with other Bash logic I moved out of the Makefile now live in the `scripts` directory. Finally, all of this is explained more clearly in an updated `README.md`. The hope with documenting this a bit better is that it would be easier for drive-by contributors to be able to either dump in new C tests for regressions they may find or enable more libc-tests. As of my current count, we only enable 40/75 of libc-test's functional tests, 0/228 math tests, 0/69 regression tests, and 0/79 API tests. Though many of these may not apply to WASI programs, it would be nice to explore how many more of these tests can be enabled to increase wasi-libc's test coverage. This change should explain how to do that and, with directives, make it possible to condition how the tests compile and run.
test/README.md
Outdated
| // filter.py(TARGET_TRIPLE): !wasm32-wasip2 | ||
| // add-flags.py(CFLAGS): ... | ||
| // add-flags.py(LDFLAGS): ... | ||
| // add-flags.py(RUN): ... |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would this be more readable if we drop the .py here?
Also perhaps a special prefix such as "//!" would be good to distinguish directives from normal comments?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agreed on the //! bit. Still mulling over the .py suggestion: one thing that always bugs me with infrastructure stuff like this is that I don't know where to look if something goes wrong. I figured if I put the .py extension on there most of us would think, "oh, I see, this logic is from some file... let's bust out find..." But that may not be as clear as I think?
test/scripts/run-test.sh
Outdated
| echo "$ENGINE $WASM" > cmd.sh | ||
| chmod +x cmd.sh | ||
| ./cmd.sh &> output.log | ||
| [ $? -eq 0 ] || echo "Test failed" >> output.log |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It looks like the string "Test failed" at the end of output.log is the signal that the test failed? Is that right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's actually if there's any output at all; appending this string just makes sure of that.
test/scripts/run-test.sh
Outdated
| ./cmd.sh &> output.log | ||
| [ $? -eq 0 ] || echo "Test failed" >> output.log | ||
| popd > /dev/null | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
All of my files have that to avoid GitHub's red-line warnings.
To avoid a `Makefile` dependency issue, a previous commit changed the location of the download directory to live inside the build directory; this change propagates that to the CI configuration. Also, it is no longer necessary to clean up anything between runs: both the `build` and `run` directory are subdivided by target triple so repeated builds will not interfere.
abrown
force-pushed
the
improve-test-infrastructure
branch
from
e4d1534
to
bcbd60f
Compare
Heh, a poor man's version unfortunately, but it should work ok to enable more tests. I think one future thing we'll want to add is the ability to express "if we're compiling target X, then add flags Y and Z." But I didn't bother with that just yet. |
This change represents a rather large re-design in how
wasi-libcbuilds and runs its tests. Initially, #346 retrieved thelibc-testrepository and built a subset of those tests to give us some amount of test coverage. Later, because there was no way to add custom C tests, #522 added asmokedirectory which allowed this. But (a) each of these test suites was built and run separately and (b) it was unclear how to add more tests flexibly--some tests should only run on*p2targets or*-threadstargets, e.g.This change reworks all of this so that all tests are built the same way, in the same place. For downloaded tests like those from
libc-test, I chose to add "stub tests" that#includethe original version. This not only keeps all enabled tests in one place, it also allows us to add "directives," C comments that theMakefileuses to filter out tests for certain targets or add special compile, link or run flags. These rudimentary scripts, along with other Bash logic I moved out of the Makefile now live in thescriptsdirectory.Finally, all of this is explained more clearly in an updated
README.md. The hope with documenting this a bit better is that it would be easier for drive-by contributors to be able to either dump in new C tests for regressions they may find or enable more libc-tests. As of my current count, we only enable 40/75 of libc-test's functional tests, 0/228 math tests, 0/69 regression tests, and 0/79 API tests. Though many of these may not apply to WASI programs, it would be nice to explore how many more of these tests can be enabled to increase wasi-libc's test coverage. This change should explain how to do that and, with directives, make it possible to condition how the tests compile and run.