[libcamera-ci] [RFC PATCH v1 2/3] Separate the building and running of unit tests
Laurent Pinchart
laurent.pinchart at ideasonboard.com
Tue Dec 17 18:24:59 CET 2024
Hi Barnabás,
On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 05:09:45PM +0100, Barnabás Pőcze wrote:
> 2024. 12. 16. 21:01 keltezéssel, Laurent Pinchart írta:
> > On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 06:26:14PM +0000, Kieran Bingham wrote:
> >> Quoting Barnabás Pőcze (2024-12-16 17:28:46)
> >>> 2024. 12. 16. 12:04 keltezéssel, Laurent Pinchart írta:
> >>>> On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 10:13:54AM +0100, Barnabás Pőcze wrote:
> >>>>> 2024. 12. 15. 21:43 keltezéssel, Laurent Pinchart írta:
> >>>>>> On Sun, Dec 15, 2024 at 09:43:20PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 15, 2024 at 09:04:08PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 07:16:54PM +0100, Barnabás Pőcze wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> The built artifacts will be reused in a later job, so split
> >>>>>>>>> the "test-unit" into the "build-test" and "test-unit" jobs.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The `libevent` development package cannot be installed in the container
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I've write `libevent-dev` here to avoid ambiguities.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> directly because it is not multiarch compatible. It is, however, installed
> >>>>>>>>> in the architecture specific build jobs, right before building. To ensure
> >>>>>>>>> that the it is available for already built executables in different jobs,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "that the it is" ?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> install just the libraries in the container.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And name here `libevent`.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Barnabás Pőcze <barnabas.pocze at ideasonboard.com>
> >>>>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>>> .gitlab-ci/setup-container.sh | 3 +++
> >>>>>>>>> gitlab-ci.yml | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++------------
> >>>>>>>>> 2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> diff --git a/.gitlab-ci/setup-container.sh b/.gitlab-ci/setup-container.sh
> >>>>>>>>> index d2909c7..0658368 100755
> >>>>>>>>> --- a/.gitlab-ci/setup-container.sh
> >>>>>>>>> +++ b/.gitlab-ci/setup-container.sh
> >>>>>>>>> @@ -103,6 +103,9 @@ case $FDO_DISTRIBUTION_VERSION in
> >>>>>>>>> 'bookworm')
> >>>>>>>>> # libclang-rt-dev for the clang ASan runtime.
> >>>>>>>>> PKGS_LIBCAMERA_RUNTIME_MULTIARCH+=( libclang-rt-dev )
> >>>>>>>>> + # For cam and lc-compliance
> >>>>>>>>> + # libevent-dev cannot be used here, see build-libcamera-common.sh
> >>>>>>>>> + PKGS_LIBCAMERA_RUNTIME_MULTIARCH+=( libevent-2.1-7 libevent-pthreads-2.1-7 )
> >>>>>>>>> ;;
> >>>>>>>>> 'trixie')
> >>>>>>>>> # gcc 13 to expand compilation testing coverage.
> >>>>>>>>> diff --git a/gitlab-ci.yml b/gitlab-ci.yml
> >>>>>>>>> index 8bc8bc2..c7448b8 100644
> >>>>>>>>> --- a/gitlab-ci.yml
> >>>>>>>>> +++ b/gitlab-ci.yml
> >>>>>>>>> @@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ include:
> >>>>>>>>> .libcamera-ci.debian:12:
> >>>>>>>>> variables:
> >>>>>>>>> FDO_DISTRIBUTION_VERSION: 'bookworm'
> >>>>>>>>> - FDO_DISTRIBUTION_TAG: '2024-12-12.1'
> >>>>>>>>> + FDO_DISTRIBUTION_TAG: '2024-12-12.2'
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> .libcamera-ci.debian:13:
> >>>>>>>>> variables:
> >>>>>>>>> @@ -363,28 +363,18 @@ test-soraka:
> >>>>>>>>> script:
> >>>>>>>>> - submit .gitlab-ci/lava/soraka-camera-test.yml
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> -# Run the unit tests in a virtual machine. Enable only the options exercised by
> >>>>>>>>> -# the unit tests.
> >>>>>>>>> -test-unit:
> >>>>>>>>> +# Enable only the options exercised by the unit tests.
> >>>>>>>>> +build-test:debug:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I'd call this build-package:amd64, as we have build-package:arm64 and
> >>>>>>>> build-package:cros. I think it would also make sense to use the same
> >>>>>>>> build options for the amd64 and arm64 packages (beside possibly the
> >>>>>>>> selected pipeline handlers, although the 'auto' option may work for
> >>>>>>>> both).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> extends:
> >>>>>>>>> - .fdo.distribution-image at debian
> >>>>>>>>> - .libcamera-ci.debian:12
> >>>>>>>>> - .libcamera-ci.scripts
> >>>>>>>>> - stage: test
> >>>>>>>>> + stage: build
> >>>>>>>>> needs:
> >>>>>>>>> - job: container-debian:12
> >>>>>>>>> artifacts: false
> >>>>>>>>> - tags:
> >>>>>>>>> - - kvm
> >>>>>>>>> script:
> >>>>>>>>> - $CI_PROJECT_DIR/.gitlab-ci/build-libcamera.sh
> >>>>>>>>> - - $CI_PROJECT_DIR/.gitlab-ci/test-libcamera-qemu.sh
> >>>>>>>>> - artifacts:
> >>>>>>>>> - name: libcamera-unit-tests-${CI_COMMIT_SHA}
> >>>>>>>>> - when: always
> >>>>>>>>> - expire_in: 1 week
> >>>>>>>>> - paths:
> >>>>>>>>> - - build/meson-logs/
> >>>>>>>>> variables:
> >>>>>>>>> BUILD_TYPE: debug
> >>>>>>>>> MESON_OPTIONS: >-
> >>>>>>>>> @@ -399,6 +389,30 @@ test-unit:
> >>>>>>>>> -D qcam=disabled
> >>>>>>>>> -D test=true
> >>>>>>>>> -D v4l2=true
> >>>>>>>>> + artifacts:
> >>>>>>>>> + paths:
> >>>>>>>>> + - build/
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The whole build directory can be very large. Can't we do the same as
> >>>>>>>> build-package:arm64 and run package-libcamera.sh to only package what we
> >>>>>>>> need ? We'll need probably need an unpackage script for the test-unit
> >>>>>>>> job.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But of course the unit test binaries don't get installed... Can we fix
> >>>>>>> that and install them ? You can specify "install_tag : 'tests'" in
> >>>>>>> meson.build so they won't be installed by default (an appropriate
> >>>>>>> install_dir is also needed). This in turn requires bumping the minimum
> >>>>>>> meson version from 0.63.0 to 0.64.0, which shouldn't be an issue.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I've been told on IRC that the motivation for the "tests" install tag in
> >>>>>> meson is https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-desktop-testing. I don't
> >>>>>> think we should switch to a separate runner for unit tests (the pain is
> >>>>>> not worth the gain at this point in my opinion), but it could be useful
> >>>>>> to tag lc-compliance with install_tag = 'tests'.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> And now that I've said this, I realize we wouldn't be able to run "meson
> >>>>>>> test" to run the tests :-/ I'm not sure there's an appropriate solution
> >>>>>>> for this. If not, given the size of the build directory, and to avoid
> >>>>>>> transferring a large amount of data between runners, we may need to keep
> >>>>>>> building libcamera within the test-unit job :-(
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> A separate build-package target for lc-compliance would still make
> >>>>>>> sense.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think it would be unfortunate to give up the usage `meson test` as you
> >>>>> mentioned.
> >>>>
> >>>> We could work on a replacement, but it would require a significant
> >>>> amount of work and I think there are better things to do.
> >>>>
> >>>>> I have not noticed that these build artifacts would put any
> >>>>> appreciable strain on the infrastructure. The compressed build directory
> >>>>> comes out to around 167 MiB; I am not sure if I would consider that a
> >>>>> large amount of data. It is definitely cheaper, in terms of time, than
> >>>>> building libcamera twice. Clearing the object files could be another
> >>>>> option. With `artifacts:exclude: build/**/*.o` we can seemingly
> >>>>> remove more than half of the uncompressed size, and about 1/4 of
> >>>>> the compressed size. Does this look acceptable?
> >>>>
> >>>> Possibly. We should probably ask the fdo sysadmins about what is
> >>>> acceptable.
> >>>>
> >>>> I gave it a try locally though, and deleting all *.o files in the build
> >>>> directory results in "meson test" rebuilding everything.
> >>>
> >>> As far as I can see that does not happen with the `--no-rebuild` option,
> >>> which is already used in `test-libcamera-qemu.sh`.
> >
> > Ah, good point, I missed that.
> >
> >>>> For other uses of the artifacts (in particular deployment on real
> >>>> devices), I would still prefer minimizing the bandwidth, creating a
> >>>> package similarly to what build-package:arm64 does. How about keeping
> >>>> test-unit as-is, at the cost of a recompilation, and creating a
> >>>> build-package:amd64 that will be used by the lc-compliance test job ? We
> >>>> can try to improve on top when/if needed.
> >>>
> >>> Couple observations:
> >>>
> >>> 1. The virtual pipeline handler configuration is not installed, so
> >>> that needs to be addressed. (Was this omitted intentionally?)
> >
> > I don't know. We have to be careful here, we don't want to virtual
> > pipeline handler to end up being enabled with a default valid
> > configuration in distributions, otherwise people will all of a sudden
> > see virtual cameras poluting their devices list.
>
> I am not sure what should be done. Maybe a separate meson `install_tag`.
> Or I suppose the configuration file could be created right before
> running it?
Hmmmm... If this is a sample configuration file that we don't want to
install by default in the location where it will be lookup up, how about
installing it as an example in doc_install_dir (e.g.
/usr/share/doc/libcamera/) and name it virtual.yaml.example ? That seems
to be a fairly common pattern.
You can move the doc_install_dir definition from
Documentation/meson.build to src/meson.build and rename it to
libcamera_docdir.
> >>> 2. I am not a fan of the extra `tar` and `ldconfig` calls that
> >>> need to be sprinkled in. I think this would be much better
> >>> if the package was not a mere tar archive but a proper deb/etc.
> >>> package. I imagine that is a prerequisite of deploying on real
> >>> hardware in any case, correct?
> >>
> >> Having the server build a 'real' deb would be a real benefit IMO, and
> >> indeed could help with installation/set up on real targets for testing
> >> in defined environments.
> >>
> >> I've wanted to tackle that for a while but never got time.
> >
> > Same, I think it's probably worth it, but it will require some effort
> > and I didn't have enough time when I implemented build-package:arm64.
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
More information about the libcamera-devel
mailing list