Re: Stable ABI checking (take 2)

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

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