simark added inline comments.

================
Comment at: clangd/ClangdLSPServer.cpp:302
 
+// FIXME: This function needs to be properly tested.
+void ClangdLSPServer::onChangeConfiguration(
----------------
ilya-biryukov wrote:
> simark wrote:
> > simark wrote:
> > > ilya-biryukov wrote:
> > > > simark wrote:
> > > > > ilya-biryukov wrote:
> > > > > > simark wrote:
> > > > > > > ilya-biryukov wrote:
> > > > > > > > Are you planning to to address this FIXME before checking the 
> > > > > > > > code in?
> > > > > > > Following what you said here:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D39571?id=124024#inline-359345
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I have not really looked into what was wrong with the test, and 
> > > > > > > what is missing in the infrastructure to make it work.  But I 
> > > > > > > assumed that the situation did not change since then.  Can you 
> > > > > > > enlighten me on what the problem was, and what is missing?
> > > > > > We usually write unittests for that kind of thing, since they allow 
> > > > > > to plug an in-memory filesystem, but we only test `ClangdServer` 
> > > > > > (examples are in `unittests/clangd/ClangdTests.cpp`). 
> > > > > > `ClangdLSPServer` does not allow to plug in a virtual filesystem 
> > > > > > (vfs). Even if we add vfs, it's still hard to unit-test because 
> > > > > > we'll have to match the json input/output directly.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > This leaves us with an option of a lit test that runs `clangd` 
> > > > > > directly, similar to tests in `test/clangd`.
> > > > > > The lit test would need to create a temporary directory, create 
> > > > > > proper `compile_commands.json` there, then send the LSP commands 
> > > > > > with the path to the test to clangd.
> > > > > > One major complication is that in LSP we have to specify the size 
> > > > > > of each message, but in our case the size would change depending on 
> > > > > > created temp path. It means we'll have to patch the test input to 
> > > > > > setup proper paths and message sizes.
> > > > > > If we choose to go down this path, 
> > > > > > `clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/vfsoverlay.cpp` does a similar 
> > > > > > setup (create temp-dir, patch up some configuration files to point 
> > > > > > into the temp directory, etc) and could be used as a starting point.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > It's not impossible to write that test, it's just a bit involved. 
> > > > > > Having a test would be nice, though, to ensure we don't break this 
> > > > > > method while doing other things. Especially given that this 
> > > > > > functionality is not used anywhere in clangd.
> > > > > > We usually write unittests for that kind of thing, since they allow 
> > > > > > to plug an in-memory filesystem, but we only test ClangdServer 
> > > > > > (examples are in unittests/clangd/ClangdTests.cpp). ClangdLSPServer 
> > > > > > does not allow to plug in a virtual filesystem (vfs). Even if we 
> > > > > > add vfs, it's still hard to unit-test because we'll have to match 
> > > > > > the json input/output directly.
> > > > > 
> > > > > What do you mean by "we'll have to match the json input/output 
> > > > > directly"?  That we'll have to match the complete JSON output 
> > > > > textually?  Couldn't the test parse the JSON into some data 
> > > > > structures, then we could assert specific things, like that this 
> > > > > particular field is present and contains a certain substring, for 
> > > > > example?
> > > > > 
> > > > > > This leaves us with an option of a lit test that runs clangd 
> > > > > > directly, similar to tests in test/clangd.
> > > > > > The lit test would need to create a temporary directory, create 
> > > > > > proper compile_commands.json there, then send the LSP commands with 
> > > > > > the path to the test to clangd.
> > > > > > One major complication is that in LSP we have to specify the size 
> > > > > > of each message, but in our case the size would change depending on 
> > > > > > created temp path. It means we'll have to patch the test input to 
> > > > > > setup proper paths and message sizes.
> > > > > > If we choose to go down this path, 
> > > > > > clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/vfsoverlay.cpp does a similar 
> > > > > > setup (create temp-dir, patch up some configuration files to point 
> > > > > > into the temp directory, etc) and could be used as a starting point.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Ok, I see the complication with the Content-Length.  I am not 
> > > > > familiar with lit yet, so I don't know what it is capable of.  But 
> > > > > being able to craft and send arbitrary LSP messages would certainly 
> > > > > be helpful in the future for all kinds of black box test, so having a 
> > > > > framework that allows to do this would be helpful, I think.  I'm not 
> > > > > familiar enough with the ecosystem to do this right now, but I'll 
> > > > > keep it in mind.
> > > > > 
> > > > > One question about this particular test.  Would there be some race 
> > > > > condition here?  If we do:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 1. Start clangd with compile_commands.json #1
> > > > > 2. Ask for the definition of a function, expecting a result
> > > > > 3. Change the configuration to compile_commands.json #2
> > > > > 4. Ask for the definition of the same function, expecting a different 
> > > > > result
> > > > > 
> > > > > Since clangd is multi-threaded and does work in the background, are 
> > > > > we sure that we'll get the result we want in #4?
> > > > > 
> > > > > > It's not impossible to write that test, it's just a bit involved. 
> > > > > > Having a test would be nice, though, to ensure we don't break this 
> > > > > > method while doing other things. Especially given that this 
> > > > > > functionality is not used anywhere in clangd.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I agree.  For the time being, is it fine to leave the FIXME there?  
> > > > > We can work on improving the test frameworks to get rid of it.
> > > > > What do you mean by "we'll have to match the json input/output 
> > > > > directly"? That we'll have to match the complete JSON output 
> > > > > textually? Couldn't the test parse the JSON into some data 
> > > > > structures, then we could assert specific things, like that this 
> > > > > particular field is present and contains a certain substring, for 
> > > > > example?
> > > > 
> > > > The interface to interact with `ClangdLSPServer` is `JSONOutput`, which 
> > > > only allows you to pass the output of requests to the stream at the 
> > > > moment. That means not only parsing json, but also finding the  
> > > > individual responses in the combined output.
> > > > 
> > > > > One question about this particular test. Would there be some race 
> > > > > condition here? If we do:
> > > > Technically clangd can do everything in parallel, but we have a flag 
> > > > `-run-synchronously` that will make it do all the work on the main 
> > > > thread and we use that in the tests.
> > > > 
> > > > LLVM has lots of tests that do substring matches, there's a special 
> > > > tool, called FileCheck, to make writing them simpler. See the test from 
> > > > my previous message (specifically the `# CHECK: ` lines), they should 
> > > > be enough to get started.
> > > > Lit itself is a set of python scripts that allow, among other things, 
> > > > to specify directly in the test file which commands the test needs to 
> > > > run. Again, see the example tests (specifically, `# RUN: clangd ....` 
> > > > lines).
> > > > 
> > > > > I agree. For the time being, is it fine to leave the FIXME there? We 
> > > > > can work on improving the test frameworks to get rid of it.
> > > > FIXME looks fine for now, but make sure to test this code does really 
> > > > work for your use-case.
> > > > FIXME looks fine for now, but make sure to test this code does really 
> > > > work for your use-case.
> > > 
> > > So far I have just tested with some small hello-world projects, but I'll 
> > > take the time to test with some bigger project (gdb).
> > > FIXME looks fine for now, but make sure to test this code does really 
> > > work for your use-case.
> > 
> > I've tested many scenarios with a project of good size.  It works as 
> > expected, but I've hit the assert in `ClangdServer::forceReparse` maybe 
> > twice.  I don't know how to reproduce it.  I think we can go ahead with the 
> > patch and maybe the problem will become clearer with time.  At least even 
> > if this feature is not completely stable, it won't affect you if you don't 
> > use it.
> What was the assertion? "forceReparse called for non-added document"?
> What was the assertion? "forceReparse called for non-added document"?

Exactly.


Repository:
  rCTE Clang Tools Extra

https://reviews.llvm.org/D39571



_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to