asm: re-allow prop-testing with cargo test#10185
Merged
alexcrichton merged 1 commit intobytecodealliance:mainfrom Feb 5, 2025
Merged
asm: re-allow prop-testing with cargo test#10185alexcrichton merged 1 commit intobytecodealliance:mainfrom
cargo test#10185alexcrichton merged 1 commit intobytecodealliance:mainfrom
Conversation
abrown
force-pushed
the
assembler-fuzzing
branch
from
55658a3 to
a836890
Compare
In bytecodealliance#10110, I originally intended to use `arbitrary` implementations in two ways: for long-running fuzz testing (e.g., with OSS-Fuzz) but also for quick property testing with `cargo test`. This latter use case could replace the tedious emit tests we had to write in `cranelift-codegen` _and_ find corner cases that we otherwise might not explore. It helped me during development: just run `cargo test` to check if anything is obviously wrong. `arbtest` seemed to be able to run ~1000 test cases and found mistakes well within the one second time limit I gave it. @alexcrichton improved bytecodealliance#10110 by avoiding `Arbitrary` implementations everywhere and unconditionally depending on the `arbitrary` crate. This was the right change, but it removed the ability to property test using `cargo test`. What this change does is retain the general intent of his change (no extra dependencies) but add `Arbitrary` implementations for `cfg(test)` as well to run property tests during `cargo test`. The only downside I see here is the added complexity when conditionally compiling the fuzz-related bits: `#[cfg(any(test, feature = "fuzz"))]`. Perhaps there is a better way to do this, but this seemed to work fine. Let me know what you think.
abrown
force-pushed
the
assembler-fuzzing
branch
from
a836890 to
0c591c5
Compare
github-actions
bot
added
the
cranelift
Member
Author
|
cc: @alexcrichton, you might want to make sure this lines up with what you were thinking. |
alexcrichton
approved these changes
Feb 4, 2025
Member
|
A little wonky but seems reasonable to me 👍 |
github-merge-queue
bot
removed this pull request from the merge queue due to failed status checks
github-merge-queue
bot
removed this pull request from the merge queue due to failed status checks
Member
|
No reliable network for you! |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
In #10110, I originally intended to use
arbitraryimplementations in two ways: for long-running fuzz testing (e.g., with OSS-Fuzz) but also for quick property testing withcargo test. This latter use case could replace the tedious emit tests we had to write incranelift-codegenand find corner cases that we otherwise might not explore. It helped me during development: just runcargo testto check if anything is obviously wrong.arbtestseemed to be able to run ~1000 test cases and found mistakes well within the one second time limit I gave it.@alexcrichton improved #10110 by avoiding
Arbitraryimplementations everywhere and unconditionally depending on thearbitrarycrate. This was the right change, but it removed the ability to property test usingcargo test. What this change does is retain the general intent of his change (no extra dependencies) but addArbitraryimplementations forcfg(test)as well to run property tests duringcargo test.The only downside I see here is the added complexity when conditionally compiling the fuzz-related bits:
#[cfg(any(test, feature = "fuzz"))]. Perhaps there is a better way to do this, but this seemed to work fine. Let me know what you think.