Skip to content

[6.2] Add %p to LLVM_PROFILE_FILE pattern when running tests with coverage (#8894) #8919

New issue

Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? # to your account

Conversation

simonjbeaumont
Copy link
Contributor

[Backport of #8894]

Motivation

The current setting for LLVM_PROFILE_PATH, used for code coverage, leads to corrupt profile data when tests are run in parallel or when writing "exit tests" with Swift Testing. This also results in the swift test --enable-code-coverage command to fail.

The LLVM_PROFILE_PATH environment variable is used by the runtime to write raw profile files, which are then processed when the test command finishes to produce the coverage results as JSON. The variable supports several pattern variables1, including %Nm, which is currently set, and is documented to create a pool of files that the runtime will handle synchronisation of. This is fine for parallelism within the process but will not work across different processes. SwiftPM uses multiple invocations of the same binary for parallel testing and users may also fork processes within their tests, which is now a required workflow when using exit tests with Swift Testing, which will fork the process internally. Furthermore, the current setting for this variable uses only %m (which implies N=1), which makes it even more likely that processes will stomp over each other when writing the raw profile data.

We can see a discussion of this happening in practice in #8893.

The variable also supports %p1, which will expand to produce a per-process path for the raw profile, which is probably what we want here, since Swift PM is combining all the profiles in the configured directory.

Modifications

Add %p to LLVM_PROFILE_FILE pattern when running tests with coverage.

Result


Appendix: Demonstrating the merging of per-process profiles

// file: ReproTests.swift

import Testing
import struct Foundation.URL
#if canImport(Darwin)
import Darwin
#elseif canImport(Glibc)
import Glibc
#endif

@Suite(.serialized) struct Suite {
    static func updateLLVMProfilePath() {
        let key = "LLVM_PROFILE_FILE"
        let profrawExtension = "profraw"
        guard let previousValueCString = getenv(key) else { return }
        let previousValue = String(cString: previousValueCString)
        let previousPath = URL(filePath: previousValue)
        guard previousPath.pathExtension == profrawExtension else { return }
        guard !previousPath.lastPathComponent.contains("%p") else { return }
        let newPath = previousPath.deletingPathExtension().appendingPathExtension("%p").appendingPathExtension(profrawExtension)
        let newValue = newPath.path(percentEncoded: false)
        print("Replacing \(key)=\(previousValue) with \(key)=\(newValue)")
        setenv(key, newValue, 1)
    }

    @Test func testA() async {
        Self.updateLLVMProfilePath()
        await #expect(processExitsWith: .success) { Subject.a() }
    }

    @Test func testB() async {
        Self.updateLLVMProfilePath()
        await #expect(processExitsWith: .success) { Subject.b() }
    }
}
// file: Subject.swift

struct Subject {
    static func a() { _ = "a" }
    static func b() { _ = "a" }
}

Running with just one test results in one per-process profile and 50% coverage, as expected.

% swift test --enable-code-coverage --filter Suite.testa
...
◇ Test run started.
↳ Testing Library Version: 6.2 (9ebfc4ebbb2840d)
↳ Target Platform: aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu
◇ Suite Suite started.
◇ Test testa() started.
Replacing LLVM_PROFILE_FILE=/pwd/.build/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/debug/codecov/Swift Testing%m.profraw with LLVM_PROFILE_FILE=/pwd/.build/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/debug/codecov/Swift Testing%m.%p.profraw
✔ Test testa() passed after 0.018 seconds.
✔ Suite Suite passed after 0.018 seconds.
✔ Test run with 1 test in 1 suite passed after 0.018 seconds.
% ls -1 .build/debug/codecov/
default.profdata
repro-exit-tests-coverage-corruption.json
'Swift Testing12847901981426048528_0.15828.profraw'
'Swift Testing12847901981426048528_0.profraw'
XCTest12847901981426048528_0.profraw

% cat .build/debug/codecov/repro-exit-tests-coverage-corruption.json  | jq '.data[].files[] | select(.filename == "/pwd/Tests/ReproTests/Subject.swift").summary.functions'
{
  "count": 2,
  "covered": 1,
  "percent": 50
}

Running the other test also results in one per-process profile and 50% coverage, as expected.

% swift test --enable-code-coverage --filter Suite.testb
...
◇ Test run started.
↳ Testing Library Version: 6.2 (9ebfc4ebbb2840d)
↳ Target Platform: aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu
◇ Suite Suite started.
◇ Test testb() started.
Replacing LLVM_PROFILE_FILE=/pwd/.build/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/debug/codecov/Swift Testing%m.profraw with LLVM_PROFILE_FILE=/pwd/.build/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/debug/codecov/Swift Testing%m.%p.profraw
✔ Test testb() passed after 0.017 seconds.
✔ Suite Suite passed after 0.017 seconds.
✔ Test run with 1 test in 1 suite passed after 0.017 seconds.
% ls -1 .build/debug/codecov/
default.profdata
repro-exit-tests-coverage-corruption.json
'Swift Testing12847901981426048528_0.15905.profraw'
'Swift Testing12847901981426048528_0.profraw'
XCTest12847901981426048528_0.profraw

% cat .build/debug/codecov/repro-exit-tests-coverage-corruption.json  | jq '.data[].files[] | select(.filename == "/pwd/Tests/ReproTests/Subject.swift").summary.functions'
{
  "count": 2,
  "covered": 1,
  "percent": 50
}

Running both tests results in two per-process profile and 100% coverage, after merge.

% swift test --enable-code-coverage --filter Suite.testa --filter Suite.testb
...
◇ Test run started.
↳ Testing Library Version: 6.2 (9ebfc4ebbb2840d)
↳ Target Platform: aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu
◇ Suite Suite started.
◇ Test testa() started.
Replacing LLVM_PROFILE_FILE=/pwd/.build/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/debug/codecov/Swift Testing%m.profraw with LLVM_PROFILE_FILE=/pwd/.build/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/debug/codecov/Swift Testing%m.%p.profraw
✔ Test testa() passed after 0.016 seconds.
◇ Test testb() started.
✔ Test testb() passed after 0.015 seconds.
✔ Suite Suite passed after 0.033 seconds.
✔ Test run with 2 tests in 1 suite passed after 0.033 seconds.
% ls -1 .build/debug/codecov/
default.profdata
repro-exit-tests-coverage-corruption.json
'Swift Testing12847901981426048528_0.15981.profraw'
'Swift Testing12847901981426048528_0.15988.profraw'
'Swift Testing12847901981426048528_0.profraw'
XCTest12847901981426048528_0.profraw

% cat .build/debug/codecov/repro-exit-tests-coverage-corruption.json  | jq '.data[].files[] | select(.filename == "/pwd/Tests/ReproTests/Subject.swift").summary.functions'
{
  "count": 2,
  "covered": 2,
  "percent": 100
}

https://clang.llvm.org/docs/SourceBasedCodeCoverage.html#running-the-instrumented-program

(cherry picked from commit 5e566d4)

Footnotes

  1. 2

…wiftlang#8894)

## Motivation

The current setting for `LLVM_PROFILE_PATH`, used for code coverage,
leads to corrupt profile data when tests are run in parallel or when
writing "exit tests" with Swift Testing. This also results in the `swift
test --enable-code-coverage` command to fail.

The `LLVM_PROFILE_PATH` environment variable is used by the runtime to
write raw profile files, which are then processed when the test command
finishes to produce the coverage results as JSON. The variable supports
several pattern variables[^1], including `%Nm`, which is currently set,
and is documented to create a pool of files that the runtime will handle
synchronisation of. This is fine for parallelism within the process but
will not work across different processes. SwiftPM uses multiple
invocations of the same binary for parallel testing and users may also
fork processes within their tests, which is now a required workflow when
using _exit tests_ with Swift Testing, which will fork the process
internally. Furthermore, the current setting for this variable uses only
`%m` (which implies `N=1`), which makes it even more likely that
processes will stomp over each other when writing the raw profile data.

We can see a discussion of this happening in practice in swiftlang#8893.

The variable also supports `%p`[^1], which will expand to produce a
per-process path for the raw profile, which is probably what we want
here, since Swift PM is combining all the profiles in the configured
directory.

## Modifications

Add %p to LLVM_PROFILE_FILE pattern when running tests with coverage.

## Result

- Running tests write coverage raw profile data to their own per-process
file pool.
- Running tests in parallel with code coverage no longer risks
corrupting coverage data.
- Running exit tests no longer risks corrupting coverage data.
- Fixes swiftlang#8893.

---

## Appendix: Demonstrating the merging of per-process profiles

```swift
// file: ReproTests.swift

import Testing
import struct Foundation.URL
#if canImport(Darwin)
import Darwin
#elseif canImport(Glibc)
import Glibc
#endif

@suite(.serialized) struct Suite {
    static func updateLLVMProfilePath() {
        let key = "LLVM_PROFILE_FILE"
        let profrawExtension = "profraw"
        guard let previousValueCString = getenv(key) else { return }
        let previousValue = String(cString: previousValueCString)
        let previousPath = URL(filePath: previousValue)
        guard previousPath.pathExtension == profrawExtension else { return }
        guard !previousPath.lastPathComponent.contains("%p") else { return }
        let newPath = previousPath.deletingPathExtension().appendingPathExtension("%p").appendingPathExtension(profrawExtension)
        let newValue = newPath.path(percentEncoded: false)
        print("Replacing \(key)=\(previousValue) with \(key)=\(newValue)")
        setenv(key, newValue, 1)
    }

    @test func testA() async {
        Self.updateLLVMProfilePath()
        await #expect(processExitsWith: .success) { Subject.a() }
    }

    @test func testB() async {
        Self.updateLLVMProfilePath()
        await #expect(processExitsWith: .success) { Subject.b() }
    }
}
```

```swift
// file: Subject.swift

struct Subject {
    static func a() { _ = "a" }
    static func b() { _ = "a" }
}
```

Running with just one test results in one per-process profile and 50%
coverage, as expected.

```console
% swift test --enable-code-coverage --filter Suite.testa
...
◇ Test run started.
↳ Testing Library Version: 6.2 (9ebfc4ebbb2840d)
↳ Target Platform: aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu
◇ Suite Suite started.
◇ Test testa() started.
Replacing LLVM_PROFILE_FILE=/pwd/.build/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/debug/codecov/Swift Testing%m.profraw with LLVM_PROFILE_FILE=/pwd/.build/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/debug/codecov/Swift Testing%m.%p.profraw
✔ Test testa() passed after 0.018 seconds.
✔ Suite Suite passed after 0.018 seconds.
✔ Test run with 1 test in 1 suite passed after 0.018 seconds.
```

```console
% ls -1 .build/debug/codecov/
default.profdata
repro-exit-tests-coverage-corruption.json
'Swift Testing12847901981426048528_0.15828.profraw'
'Swift Testing12847901981426048528_0.profraw'
XCTest12847901981426048528_0.profraw

% cat .build/debug/codecov/repro-exit-tests-coverage-corruption.json  | jq '.data[].files[] | select(.filename == "/pwd/Tests/ReproTests/Subject.swift").summary.functions'
{
  "count": 2,
  "covered": 1,
  "percent": 50
}
```

Running the other test also results in one per-process profile and 50%
coverage, as expected.

```console
% swift test --enable-code-coverage --filter Suite.testb
...
◇ Test run started.
↳ Testing Library Version: 6.2 (9ebfc4ebbb2840d)
↳ Target Platform: aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu
◇ Suite Suite started.
◇ Test testb() started.
Replacing LLVM_PROFILE_FILE=/pwd/.build/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/debug/codecov/Swift Testing%m.profraw with LLVM_PROFILE_FILE=/pwd/.build/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/debug/codecov/Swift Testing%m.%p.profraw
✔ Test testb() passed after 0.017 seconds.
✔ Suite Suite passed after 0.017 seconds.
✔ Test run with 1 test in 1 suite passed after 0.017 seconds.
```

```console
% ls -1 .build/debug/codecov/
default.profdata
repro-exit-tests-coverage-corruption.json
'Swift Testing12847901981426048528_0.15905.profraw'
'Swift Testing12847901981426048528_0.profraw'
XCTest12847901981426048528_0.profraw

% cat .build/debug/codecov/repro-exit-tests-coverage-corruption.json  | jq '.data[].files[] | select(.filename == "/pwd/Tests/ReproTests/Subject.swift").summary.functions'
{
  "count": 2,
  "covered": 1,
  "percent": 50
}
```

Running both tests results in two per-process profile and 100% coverage,
after merge.

```console
% swift test --enable-code-coverage --filter Suite.testa --filter Suite.testb
...
◇ Test run started.
↳ Testing Library Version: 6.2 (9ebfc4ebbb2840d)
↳ Target Platform: aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu
◇ Suite Suite started.
◇ Test testa() started.
Replacing LLVM_PROFILE_FILE=/pwd/.build/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/debug/codecov/Swift Testing%m.profraw with LLVM_PROFILE_FILE=/pwd/.build/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/debug/codecov/Swift Testing%m.%p.profraw
✔ Test testa() passed after 0.016 seconds.
◇ Test testb() started.
✔ Test testb() passed after 0.015 seconds.
✔ Suite Suite passed after 0.033 seconds.
✔ Test run with 2 tests in 1 suite passed after 0.033 seconds.
```

```console
% ls -1 .build/debug/codecov/
default.profdata
repro-exit-tests-coverage-corruption.json
'Swift Testing12847901981426048528_0.15981.profraw'
'Swift Testing12847901981426048528_0.15988.profraw'
'Swift Testing12847901981426048528_0.profraw'
XCTest12847901981426048528_0.profraw

% cat .build/debug/codecov/repro-exit-tests-coverage-corruption.json  | jq '.data[].files[] | select(.filename == "/pwd/Tests/ReproTests/Subject.swift").summary.functions'
{
  "count": 2,
  "covered": 2,
  "percent": 100
}
```

[^1]:
https://clang.llvm.org/docs/SourceBasedCodeCoverage.html#running-the-instrumented-program

(cherry picked from commit 5e566d4)
@simonjbeaumont
Copy link
Contributor Author

cc @bkhouri

@simonjbeaumont
Copy link
Contributor Author

Oops, apparently @bkhouri already kindly opened the cherry-pick PR in #8918. Closing this one.

# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant