tests: reduce runtime #20688

BridgeAR · 2018-05-12T16:40:46Z

This refactors some tests to reduce the runtime of those.

I looked at the first five tests from #20128 but the other two did not seem to be
possible to improve (CPU bound + a necessary timeout of 1 second).

Checklist

make -j4 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test (Windows) passes
tests and/or benchmarks are included
documentation is changed or added
commit message follows commit guidelines

BridgeAR · 2018-05-12T16:41:22Z

CI https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/14823/

Trott · 2018-05-12T17:40:18Z

test/parallel/test-async-wrap-pop-id-during-load.js

@@ -1,21 +1,22 @@
 'use strict';

-require('../common');


Rather than move the module use to a later line, thus making this test violate our test formatting guidelines (and possibly make it inevitable that someone will just move it back some day soon), it would be better IMO to not call this file with spawnSync at all but instead to move the recursive async call stuff to a fixture. Is there a reason not to do that instead?

+1 on this... the require('../common') should be at the top.

Loading common is a immense overhead and when looking into that file there are only two reasons for it to always load currently:

On exit it checks if there are "leaked globals". I do not understand the reasoning for these checks. What is the point in checking for these? If anyone adds such a thing it should probably come up in a code review.

If the NODE_TEST_WITH_ASYNC_HOOKS environment variable is set, it will check for some things on exit. The reasoning for this was probably a rough smoke test. I personally believe we should not use it like this and instead just try to add a solid test base that would cover these things already. Do we know if this has ever uncovered some bugs?

Besides that common only exports functions for convenience.

So what I actually want to propose is to remove all common requires if they are not necessary and I would also like to split common into a couple small files that are specific to the individual use case. This will hopefully also improve the test runtime in general.

The check for leaked globals should remain. It may be missed in code review and people should be notified when they run make test rather than having it come up during code review.

I'd be fine if everything else were moved to individual modules under common but that's a big change.

But why would we manipulate globals in a test if there is no reason to do so?

Having a general check against leaked globals is absolutely fine but we could achieve that by just requiring all modules in a test and then checking for the known globals.

@BridgeAR You make a reasonable case for removing the requirement of always loading common. I'm not sure I'm convinced--for example, if the current global leak detection approach does not work sufficiently well, might not the better approach be to fix it rather than to not require it? I'm asking rhetorically, as I can see arguments both ways on that one.

If no one else objects to it, I won't either.

That all aside: if we want to run some code in all our tests files all the time (no matter what code), should we not just rewrite the way how we call our tests and make sure the tests automatically load that code as well?

That had been suggested in the past and, IIRC, got a big -1 from people (I think @bnoordhuis was one of them) because it introduces more magic. In other words, tests will pass when called with test.py or whatever but fail if run directly with ./node. For me personally, I'm not sure that's really a problem. It might even be an improvement from our current situation if it changes us from "some tests fail if you don't use test.py" to "all tests fail if you don't use test.py". But I don't feel strongly about that.

@nodejs/testing

Actually, thinking more about it, I'm not 100% sure the case that it doesn't work correctly is convincing. So what if it doesn't check non-enumerables? That just means we fail to detect it if someone adds a non-enumerable. First, that can be fixed. But second, in most cases, I'd imagine people accidentally leak enumerables. And those get detected. Or am I missing something?

Yeah, it's only taken me four minutes, but I think I've returned to thinking that the global leak detection is valuable and should be in all tests.

For me it still seems weird to have a halfway broken test that runs with each test file. Yes, it does detect enumerable entries but that should also be possible in almost all cases by just having a single test file that loads all modules. Of course the global could be added somewhere deep down but that is even more unlikely... I also do not know a compelling reason for not manipulating globals in tests. We normally do not do that but if it is done, it would only impact that specific test. For me removing common is more about code hygiene than about runtime.

It feels like this is a legacy test that was implemented because 8 years ago the test suite was not that good and people pushed code directly to the repo instead of having code reviews. All that changed and as such this test became somewhat obsolete out of my perspective.

I do not want to spend much more energy into this but I really think we should start questioning some old decisions way more often.

…I really think we should start questioning some old decisions way more often.

💯 to that. I think that's what we're doing here right now. We're just not (yet, at least) agreeing on what the correct answer to that questioning is. And you raise excellent points. I'm not convinced it outweighs the benefits, but it would be interesting to know what others think. AFACT, it's just you, me, @jasnell, and @TimothyGu that have weighed on in the specific issue. Might be interesting to see what others think. This is a significant enough issue that I can see reconstituting the Testing WG if there are one or two other similar issues like this that need to be hashed out.

Trott · 2018-05-12T17:41:37Z

test/parallel/test-child-process-exec-encoding.js

@@ -1,17 +1,17 @@
 'use strict';
-const common = require('../common');


Same here. Can we move the child process code to a fixture?

I think moving these things to a fixture is the wrong thing to do. We have a lot of fixtures and there is no benefit this in a fixture as far as I see it. It is much easier to handle this test if everything is together. The fixtures folder is full with things of which probably no one has an idea about what is really in there.

mscdex · 2018-05-12T19:30:33Z

I think the commit message prefix should be just test:?

TimothyGu

-1 on changing the location of require('../').

BridgeAR · 2018-05-13T20:38:53Z

@TimothyGu would you be so kind and give some reasoning for it? I just fail to understand what the point of always loading it is as I pointed out above.

Trott · 2018-05-13T21:34:14Z

@TimothyGu would you be so kind and give some reasoning for it? I just fail to understand what the point of always loading it is as I pointed out above.

@BridgeAR The purpose of this change seems to be to shave a second or two off the test run. That seems like an insignificant gain compared to the cost of introducing inconsistency in test formatting and practices, especially given that there is another approach that should be as effective (which is to put the code that doesn't need common into fixtures). I agree that fixtures is a mess, but in my opinion, the answer isn't "don't use fixtures". The answer is "organize the fixtures".

BridgeAR · 2018-05-14T01:36:36Z

@Trott for me it the current discussion is more about the general purpose of always loading common and not about shaving of a second of the test run. This would not only make the tests faster but also make the code cleaner. It just does not seem necessary to do that because the global check never really worked properly. See #20688 (comment) for more about that.

About organizing the fixtures: at least for me the main aspect is that I do not have to check another file if I want to know what the test actually does. I strongly believe it is best to keep that part in the same file.

This refactors some tests to reduce the runtime of those. Refs: nodejs#20128

BridgeAR · 2018-05-14T12:04:47Z

Rebased to address the tests comment. I also moved the common part back to the top of the files.

New CI https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/14859/

TimothyGu · 2018-05-16T13:57:08Z

test/parallel/test-async-wrap-pop-id-during-load.js

-const ret = spawnSync(process.execPath, [__filename, 'async']);
+const ret = spawnSync(
+  process.execPath,
+  ['--stack_size=50', __filename, 'async']


Aren’t we never supposed to change the stack size?

Since this lowers the size that V8 assumes to have, it should be fine. This is also the only main reason for this test to run ~3x faster. I personally think it is fine to use here because it would still work even if the flag would be a no-op. @hashseed @bmeurer are you fine with me using this in this case?

TimothyGu · 2018-05-16T13:57:50Z

test/parallel/test-async-wrap-pop-id-during-load.js

 assert.strictEqual(ret.status, 0);
-assert.ok(!/async.*hook/i.test(ret.stderr.toString('utf8', 0, 1024)));
+const stderr = ret.stderr.toString('utf8', 0, 2048);


Why the increase in end?

I checked the actual output and it was cut off relatively early without printing a lot of information. By increasing that limit it actually makes sure we really test for the right values.

BridgeAR · 2018-05-18T15:51:36Z

PTAL

hashseed

I'm fine with using --stack_size for the purpose of making tests hit the stack limit sooner.

BridgeAR · 2018-05-19T15:15:38Z

Ping @TimothyGu

Trott

These changes introduce unreliability into the tests that is not in the current versions. Running these tests with -j 96 --repeat 192 (or other large-ish values) results in errors that do not happen with the current versions.

Trott · 2018-05-19T16:38:10Z

Changing spawnSync() to spawn() may have unintended consequences for test reliability. Especially if this is going to happen in more and more tests, the solution is likely to move such tests to sequential, defeating the purpose of these changes in the first place.

$ tools/test.py -j 40 --repeat 40 test/parallel/test-buffer-constructor-node-modules-paths.js
=== release test-buffer-constructor-node-modules-paths ===                     
Path: parallel/test-buffer-constructor-node-modules-paths
/Users/trott/io.js/test/parallel/test-buffer-constructor-node-modules-paths.js:20
  child.stderr.on('data', (value) => {
               ^

TypeError: Cannot read property 'on' of undefined
    at test (/Users/trott/io.js/test/parallel/test-buffer-constructor-node-modules-paths.js:20:16)
    at Object.<anonymous> (/Users/trott/io.js/test/parallel/test-buffer-constructor-node-modules-paths.js:44:1)
    at Module._compile (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:702:30)
    at Object.Module._extensions..js (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:713:10)
    at Module.load (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:612:32)
    at tryModuleLoad (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:551:12)
    at Function.Module._load (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:543:3)
    at Function.Module.runMain (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:744:10)
    at startup (internal/bootstrap/node.js:236:19)
    at bootstrapNodeJSCore (internal/bootstrap/node.js:568:3)
Command: out/Release/node /Users/trott/io.js/test/parallel/test-buffer-constructor-node-modules-paths.js
=== release test-buffer-constructor-node-modules-paths ===                    
Path: parallel/test-buffer-constructor-node-modules-paths
/Users/trott/io.js/test/parallel/test-buffer-constructor-node-modules-paths.js:20
  child.stderr.on('data', (value) => {
               ^

TypeError: Cannot read property 'on' of undefined
    at test (/Users/trott/io.js/test/parallel/test-buffer-constructor-node-modules-paths.js:20:16)
    at Object.<anonymous> (/Users/trott/io.js/test/parallel/test-buffer-constructor-node-modules-paths.js:35:1)
    at Module._compile (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:702:30)
    at Object.Module._extensions..js (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:713:10)
    at Module.load (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:612:32)
    at tryModuleLoad (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:551:12)
    at Function.Module._load (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:543:3)
    at Function.Module.runMain (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:744:10)
    at startup (internal/bootstrap/node.js:236:19)
    at bootstrapNodeJSCore (internal/bootstrap/node.js:568:3)
Command: out/Release/node /Users/trott/io.js/test/parallel/test-buffer-constructor-node-modules-paths.js
=== release test-buffer-constructor-node-modules-paths ===                    
Path: parallel/test-buffer-constructor-node-modules-paths
/Users/trott/io.js/test/parallel/test-buffer-constructor-node-modules-paths.js:20
  child.stderr.on('data', (value) => {
               ^

TypeError: Cannot read property 'on' of undefined
    at test (/Users/trott/io.js/test/parallel/test-buffer-constructor-node-modules-paths.js:20:16)
    at Object.<anonymous> (/Users/trott/io.js/test/parallel/test-buffer-constructor-node-modules-paths.js:45:1)
    at Module._compile (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:702:30)
    at Object.Module._extensions..js (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:713:10)
    at Module.load (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:612:32)
    at tryModuleLoad (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:551:12)
    at Function.Module._load (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:543:3)
    at Function.Module.runMain (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:744:10)
    at startup (internal/bootstrap/node.js:236:19)
    at bootstrapNodeJSCore (internal/bootstrap/node.js:568:3)
Command: out/Release/node /Users/trott/io.js/test/parallel/test-buffer-constructor-node-modules-paths.js
=== release test-buffer-constructor-node-modules-paths ===                    
Path: parallel/test-buffer-constructor-node-modules-paths
/Users/trott/io.js/test/parallel/test-buffer-constructor-node-modules-paths.js:20
  child.stderr.on('data', (value) => {
               ^

TypeError: Cannot read property 'on' of undefined
    at test (/Users/trott/io.js/test/parallel/test-buffer-constructor-node-modules-paths.js:20:16)
    at Object.<anonymous> (/Users/trott/io.js/test/parallel/test-buffer-constructor-node-modules-paths.js:36:1)
    at Module._compile (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:702:30)
    at Object.Module._extensions..js (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:713:10)
    at Module.load (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:612:32)
    at tryModuleLoad (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:551:12)
    at Function.Module._load (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:543:3)
    at Function.Module.runMain (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:744:10)
    at startup (internal/bootstrap/node.js:236:19)
    at bootstrapNodeJSCore (internal/bootstrap/node.js:568:3)
Command: out/Release/node /Users/trott/io.js/test/parallel/test-buffer-constructor-node-modules-paths.js
=== release test-buffer-constructor-node-modules-paths ===                    
Path: parallel/test-buffer-constructor-node-modules-paths
/Users/trott/io.js/test/parallel/test-buffer-constructor-node-modules-paths.js:20
  child.stderr.on('data', (value) => {
               ^

TypeError: Cannot read property 'on' of undefined
    at test (/Users/trott/io.js/test/parallel/test-buffer-constructor-node-modules-paths.js:20:16)
    at Object.<anonymous> (/Users/trott/io.js/test/parallel/test-buffer-constructor-node-modules-paths.js:41:1)
    at Module._compile (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:702:30)
    at Object.Module._extensions..js (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:713:10)
    at Module.load (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:612:32)
    at tryModuleLoad (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:551:12)
    at Function.Module._load (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:543:3)
    at Function.Module.runMain (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:744:10)
    at startup (internal/bootstrap/node.js:236:19)
    at bootstrapNodeJSCore (internal/bootstrap/node.js:568:3)
Command: out/Release/node /Users/trott/io.js/test/parallel/test-buffer-constructor-node-modules-paths.js
=== release test-buffer-constructor-node-modules-paths ===                    
Path: parallel/test-buffer-constructor-node-modules-paths
/Users/trott/io.js/test/parallel/test-buffer-constructor-node-modules-paths.js:20
  child.stderr.on('data', (value) => {
               ^

TypeError: Cannot read property 'on' of undefined
    at test (/Users/trott/io.js/test/parallel/test-buffer-constructor-node-modules-paths.js:20:16)
    at Object.<anonymous> (/Users/trott/io.js/test/parallel/test-buffer-constructor-node-modules-paths.js:34:1)
    at Module._compile (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:702:30)
    at Object.Module._extensions..js (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:713:10)
    at Module.load (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:612:32)
    at tryModuleLoad (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:551:12)
    at Function.Module._load (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:543:3)
    at Function.Module.runMain (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:744:10)
    at startup (internal/bootstrap/node.js:236:19)
    at bootstrapNodeJSCore (internal/bootstrap/node.js:568:3)
Command: out/Release/node /Users/trott/io.js/test/parallel/test-buffer-constructor-node-modules-paths.js
[00:15|% 100|+  34|-   6]: Done
$

addaleax · 2018-05-19T16:41:12Z

test/parallel/test-buffer-constructor-node-modules-paths.js

-    assert.strictEqual(stderr.trim(), '');
+  let stderr = '';
+  child.stderr.on('data', (value) => {
+    stderr += value.toString();


Please always use stream.setEncoding() instead of converting each chunk to strings individually.

addaleax · 2018-05-19T16:41:48Z

@Trott Do you know why those failures happen? It seems like maybe we should consider that a bug in Node.js?

Trott · 2018-05-19T16:48:00Z

@Trott Do you know why those failures happen? It seems like maybe we should consider that a bug in Node.js?

@addaleax I didn't look closely and I'm about to step away from the computer, but I'm guessing that the change from spawnSync() to spawn() resulted in too many processes trying to run so the spawn failed and child.stderr doesn't exist. Maybe the new code is not listening for an error event that it should be listening for or something like that.

Trott · 2018-05-19T16:53:16Z

@addaleax Yeah, looking at the change for an additional 30 seconds (which I probably should have done before typing up my previous response): This changes the test from launching 13 processes in series to launching 13 processes in parallel. IMO, tests like that should not go in parallel. If we want to do it like this, the test should be moved to sequential, but that probably negates most or all of the runtime reduction, which is the main motivation here judging from the title of the PR ("reduce runtime").

TimothyGu

LGTM when @Trott's concerns get addressed.

BridgeAR · 2018-05-21T02:46:50Z

@Trott thanks for pointing this out. Even though I was able to get the test fully reliable running async as well, it did indeed increase the code complexity and it did not result in a significant runtime reduction. Therefore I fully reverted that test change to run sync again.

BridgeAR · 2018-05-21T02:47:14Z

I won't start a new CI as I only reverted it to the old style.

change request addressed

This refactors some tests to reduce the runtime of those. PR-URL: nodejs#20688 Refs: nodejs#20128 Reviewed-By: Tiancheng "Timothy" Gu <timothygu99@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Yang Guo <yangguo@chromium.org>

BridgeAR · 2018-05-21T15:53:10Z

Thanks.

Landed in 352ae23

This refactors some tests to reduce the runtime of those. PR-URL: #20688 Refs: #20128 Reviewed-By: Tiancheng "Timothy" Gu <timothygu99@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Yang Guo <yangguo@chromium.org>

MylesBorins · 2018-05-23T21:07:59Z

This was causing failures on AIX and had to be backed out of the 10.2.0 release. Worth exploring

edit: CI run https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-commit-aix/15245/

Trott · 2018-05-24T04:19:50Z

This was causing failures on AIX and had to be backed out of the 10.2.0 release. Worth exploring

edit: CI run https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-commit-aix/15245/

It also failed here:
https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-commit-aix/15241/nodes=aix61-ppc64/console

Trott · 2018-05-24T04:20:39Z

Stress test: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-stress-single-test/1866/

EDIT: So far the stress test isn't showing anything, so let's try it with some actual parallelism:
https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-stress-single-test/1867/

Trott · 2018-05-24T04:27:08Z

Interestingly, this change makes the test take much longer on AIX than the previous version. Prior to this change, parallel/test-async-wrap-pop-id-during-load took less than 2 seconds to run on AIX. With this change, it takes nearly 5 seconds.

gireeshpunathil · 2018-05-24T07:15:10Z

I had a look at the AIX failure. The child spawned with --stack_size=50 was throwing RangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded even before entering the async-await sequence, so obviously it was catpured in

assert.strictEqual(ret.status, 0);

and asserted.

When I calibrated the stack size, I found 100 is a decent value to enter the test logic. However, it is purely empirical, and may not be reliable across systems and invocation sequences.

This refactors some tests to reduce the runtime of those. PR-URL: #20688 Refs: #20128 Reviewed-By: Tiancheng "Timothy" Gu <timothygu99@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Yang Guo <yangguo@chromium.org>

nodejs-github-bot added the test Issues and PRs related to the tests. label May 12, 2018

Trott reviewed May 12, 2018

View reviewed changes

TimothyGu suggested changes May 13, 2018

View reviewed changes

test: reduce runtime

5cc7f93

This refactors some tests to reduce the runtime of those. Refs: nodejs#20128

BridgeAR force-pushed the improve-tests branch from f3763fd to 5cc7f93 Compare May 14, 2018 12:04

TimothyGu reviewed May 16, 2018

View reviewed changes

hashseed approved these changes May 18, 2018

View reviewed changes

Trott previously requested changes May 19, 2018

View reviewed changes

addaleax reviewed May 19, 2018

View reviewed changes

Trott mentioned this pull request May 19, 2018

Refactor slow running tests #20128

Closed

TimothyGu approved these changes May 20, 2018

View reviewed changes

fixup: revert changes

3882ba8

TimothyGu approved these changes May 21, 2018

View reviewed changes

BridgeAR added the author ready PRs that have at least one approval, no pending requests for changes, and a CI started. label May 21, 2018

BridgeAR closed this May 21, 2018

addaleax mentioned this pull request May 22, 2018

v10.2.0 proposal #20724

Merged

Trott mentioned this pull request May 24, 2018

Revert "test: reduce runtime" #20927

Closed

1 task

gireeshpunathil mentioned this pull request May 24, 2018

test: test-async-wrap-pop-id-during-load failure on mac #20888

Closed

targos removed the author ready PRs that have at least one approval, no pending requests for changes, and a CI started. label May 25, 2018

MylesBorins mentioned this pull request May 29, 2018

v10.3.0 proposal #21011

Merged

BridgeAR deleted the improve-tests branch January 20, 2020 11:33

		@@ -1,17 +1,17 @@
		'use strict';
		const common = require('../common');

tests: reduce runtime #20688

tests: reduce runtime #20688

Conversation

BridgeAR commented May 12, 2018

Checklist

BridgeAR commented May 12, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Trott May 13, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Trott May 14, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Trott May 14, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mscdex commented May 12, 2018

TimothyGu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

BridgeAR commented May 13, 2018

Trott commented May 13, 2018

BridgeAR commented May 14, 2018

BridgeAR commented May 14, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

BridgeAR commented May 18, 2018

hashseed left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

BridgeAR commented May 19, 2018

Trott left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Trott commented May 19, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

addaleax commented May 19, 2018

Trott commented May 19, 2018

Trott commented May 19, 2018 • edited Loading

TimothyGu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

BridgeAR commented May 21, 2018

BridgeAR commented May 21, 2018

BridgeAR commented May 21, 2018

MylesBorins commented May 23, 2018 • edited Loading

Trott commented May 24, 2018

Trott commented May 24, 2018 • edited Loading

Trott commented May 24, 2018

gireeshpunathil commented May 24, 2018

Trott May 13, 2018 •

edited

Loading

Trott May 14, 2018 •

edited

Loading

Trott May 14, 2018 •

edited

Loading

Trott commented May 19, 2018 •

edited

Loading

Trott commented May 19, 2018 •

edited

Loading

MylesBorins commented May 23, 2018 •

edited

Loading

Trott commented May 24, 2018 •

edited

Loading