Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCHv2] Remove validate-abi.sh from tree

[Ray Kinsella <mdr@ashroe.eu>]

On 09/04/2020 17:51, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 09/04/2020 18:29, Ray Kinsella:
>> On 09/04/2020 16:18, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>> 09/04/2020 16:52, Ray Kinsella:
>>>> On 09/04/2020 11:59, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>>>> 09/04/2020 12:45, Ray Kinsella:
>>>>>> On 09/04/2020 11:43, Bruce Richardson wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 06:39:54AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 08:57:34AM +0100, Ray Kinsella wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 08/04/2020 20:56, Neil Horman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> +The syntax of the ``check-abi.sh`` utility is::
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> +   ./devtools/check-abi.sh <refdir> <newdir>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (from v1 feedback)
>>>>>>>>> Could we simplify this all greatly, by telling people to use the meson/ninja build,
>>>>>>>>> so they get this checking out of the box, without all the headache below?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think bruce noted that was never merged, correct?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yep, correct. :-(
>>>>>>
>>>>>> apologies, was there a reason?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because build tool job is building, not checking.
>>>>> It would be wrong to make (slow) checks mandatory in all builds.
>>>>>
>>>>> The need is to enforce checking ABI.
>>>>> The result is already published by Travis in patchwork and in an
>>>>> email to the author I believe.
>>>>> Not checking email and patchwork is not a good excuse.
>>>>>
>>>>> Patchwork must be a mandatory read for everybody for all checks
>>>>> in general. Let's not give up on general CI workflow.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thomas 
>>>>
>>>> You are trying to solve two problems at once; CI tooling and ABI.
>>>> Let's try to solve one at a time.
>>>
>>> No, you want to mix two problems in a single tool :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>> 1. The ABI check, will make the build _marginally_ slower.
>>>> You _should_ only need to rebuild the changes between A and B.
>>>
>>> Not so marginal.
>>> A re-build takes less than a second. A mandatory check takes 10 secs
>>> on my machine.
>>>
>>>
>>>> 2. The meson/ninja are an order of magnitude faster than GNU Make. 
>>>> We can afford this check.
>>>
>>> I am doing such build 10 times (each target) per patch.
>>> But that's not the main issue.
>>>
>>>
>>>> 3. If we want to lessen the ABI burden and send the correct message.
>>>> It should be a build blocker, contributors need to hear the message loud and clear.
>>>
>>> The developer needs to get or build/save the ABI reference.
>>> Making such ABI reference for each target is not so obvious:
>>>   - all symbols must be enabled (dependencies)
>>>   - some fixes may be needed for some compilers
>>>
>>>
>>>> Most important people _consuming_ DPDK will never see this message.
>>>> Only people _changing_ the ABI will see it - the people we want to hear the message loud and clear.
>>>
>>> No, they will have issue in DPDK compilation if something in the check
>>> goes wrong. We should not bother end users with internal checks.
>>>
>>>
>>> The message is 
>>> a) run the check by
>>>   1) setting DPDK_ABI_REF_VERSION on command line or in devel.config file
>>>   2) running devtools/test-build.sh or devtools/test-meson-builds.sh
>>> b) check what Travis is reporting in
>>>   - email to you
>>>   - patchwork reports
>>>
>>> I think Travis report is convenient to use.
>>> The local check is integrated in build scripts
>>> but cannot be run by default because of the reasons above.
>>
>> Thomas the reality on this is that people have a tendency to filter
>> this messages into an email folder and don't always see them. 
>>
>> My 2c is that this will always be a struggle unless we find a way
>> to make it un-ignore-able.
>> Hence my build-wiring suggestion. 
> 
> My other concern is that we will have the same issue with all checks
> done in a CI.
> I think the right approach is to enforce people checking CI results.

Beyond asking maintainers to check, how would we enforce?

> They will be used to check CI in patchwork because the patches will
> be blocked.
>