On 22.02.2021 15:03, Andrew Cooper wrote: > Hello, > > Staging is now capable of writing out an ABI description when the > appropriate tool (abi-dumper) is available. > > We now have to possible courses of action for ABI checking in builds. > > 1) Publish the ABI descriptions on xenbits, update all downstream test > systems to invoke abi-compliance-checker manually. > > 2) Commit/update the ABI descriptions when RELEASE-$X.$Y.0 is tagged, > update the main build to use abi-compliance-checker when available. > > > Pros/Cons: > > The ABI descriptions claim to be sensitive to toolchain in use. I don't > know how true this is in practice. > > Publishing on xenbits involves obtaining even more misc artefacts during > the build, which is going to be firm -2 from downstreams. > > Committing the ABI descriptions lets abi checking work in developer > builds (with suitable tools installed). It also means we get checking > "for free" in Gitlab CI and OSSTest without custom logic. > > > Thoughts on which approach is better? I'm leaning in favour of option 2 > because it allows for consumption by developers and test systems.
+1 for option 2, fwiw. > If we do go with route 2, I was thinking of adding a `make check` > hierarchy. Longer term, this can be used to queue up other unit tests > which can be run from within the build tree. Is there a reason the normal build process can't be made fail in case verification fails? Besides "make check" typically meaning to invoke a functional testsuite rather than (just) some compatibility checking, I'd also be worried of no-one (likely including me) to remember to separately run "make check" at appropriate times. Jan
