Re: Stable ABI checking (take 2)

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 22.02.2021 17:00, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 22/02/2021 14:37, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> As far as RPM is concerned, splitting the two is important, as %build
> and %check are explicitly separate steps.  I have no idea what the deb
> policy/organisation is here.
> 
> Merging some of check into build would be a layering violation, and even
> if we did so, where do you draw the line?

Well, building a shared object that won't load is as bad as building
a shared object that won't work because of violating expected
guarantees. The closest similarity I can think of right away would be
the linker error you ought to get when a to-be-exported symbol can't
be resolved. The line imo would be drawn between things detectable at
build time vs those only detectable by actually using the generated
binaries.

Jan