Conversation
mingweishih
left a comment
mingweishih
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM with just comments on the hard-coded paths.
Since this PR would take dependency on the libgcc/libgcov and the Makefiles of sgx-musl, I assume those will be taken care of before this PR goes in.
Also, the lcov will be the prerequisite of the measurement. CI/CD should handle that as well.
The follow-up will be converting the lcov report to other form so that the devops pipeline can consume. One suggestion would be cobertura, and the conversion can be done with the python tool.
|
|
||
| # Gather all necessary files for lcov | ||
| cp -r $SGXLKL_ROOT/src/* $SGXLKL_ROOT/cov | ||
| sudo cp -r img/home/xuejun/sgx-lkl/build_musl $SGXLKL_ROOT/cov |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the hard-coded path needs to be changed.
| # Gather all necessary files for lcov | ||
| cp -r $SGXLKL_ROOT/src/* $SGXLKL_ROOT/cov | ||
| sudo cp -r img/home/xuejun/sgx-lkl/build_musl $SGXLKL_ROOT/cov | ||
| sudo cp -r img/home/xuejun/sgx-lkl/sgx-lkl-musl $SGXLKL_ROOT/cov |
| # Get the timeout from the test module | ||
| DEFAULT_TIMEOUT=300 | ||
| timeout=$(make gettimeout 2> /dev/null) | ||
| [[ $? != 0 ]] && timeout=$DEFAULT_TIMEOUT |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
-ne will be better for number comparison
| timeout --kill-after=$(($timeout + 15)) $timeout make run-hw | ||
| make_exit=$? | ||
|
|
||
| if [ $make_exit != 0 ]; then |
| timeout --kill-after=$(($timeout + 15)) $timeout make run-sw | ||
| make_exit=$? | ||
|
|
||
| if [ $make_exit != 0 ]; then |
| @@ -0,0 +1,31 @@ | |||
| #!/bin/bash | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think it makes sense that there are new scripts which duplicate the non-coverage test logic. Why not extend the existing scripts and add an extra environment variable to enable it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There are key differences between this script and the test runner script.
- This script is conditioned on the fact that sgx-lkl was built with CODE_COVERAGE=1
- We ideally want to include samples in the code coverage measurement
- For each test/sample, we run
run-hwandrun-swback to back, and extract the collective coverage data from the image. - The objective is to measure code coverage. So the coverage data for failed test are included in the final aggregated code coverage metrics.
If you compare this script and test_runner, also measure_one_cov with run_test, there aren't many duplicated code. I prefer to keep them separate for easier maintenance.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for explaining. I'm trying to think how this fits into CI. Given that debug/release build modes have slightly different code paths it may make sense to capture code coverage in both modes and merge it. Or we just do it for one mode if the differences are not worth measuring. Either way, it would mean adding at least one new build job with CODE_COVERAGE=1 and corresponding test/coverage job(s).
You're saying that your script runs both hw and sw. This is a bit unfortunate because it prevents running sw on non-SGX machines and in parallel. Would it be possible to run them separately, dump the coverage files and merge them in a follow-up step?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's hard to merge coverage data from two VMs. It requires a global vm for aggregation. We will leave the work of integrating into pipeline in another PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's actually not that hard to do, you can specify dependencies between jobs and use build artifacts to upload/download job data.
4 participants
This enables code coverage with a build config, namely:
Once built sgx-lkl this way, the script
.azure-pipelines/scripts/measure_code_cov.shis used to run test cases undertestsand the final accumulated code coverage data is posted tosgx-lkl/total_cov.info.