Skip to content

Add static and runtime verification tools against existing tests #15298

Closed

Description

@CIPop

/cc: @stephentoub @vijaykota @pgavlin @davidsh

We should augment our CI with static and runtime verification tools that can be enabled against our existing tests:

Windows:

Linux:

This should already be part of normal pre-commit procedures for all teams.
Could we make this an automated part of CI/Weekly testing?

Activity

  1. stephentoub commented on Sep 28, 2015

    @stephentoub
    Member
  2. joshfree commented on Oct 1, 2015

    @joshfree
    Member

    @steveharter could you take a look at this while you're working on CLANG debug switches?

  3. steveharter commented on Nov 10, 2015

    @steveharter
    Contributor

    Enabling the CLANG switches is under review. This was problematic due to various linker errors caused by header files including definitions not implemented for various ifdefs. dotnet/coreclr@master...steveharter:CMake

  4. steveharter commented on Nov 10, 2015

    @steveharter
    Contributor

    For CMAKE sanitizers Will create at least these new issues:

    1. enable cmake for coreclr: dotnet/corefx#4434
    2. enable cmake for corefx: dotnet/corefx#4803
    3. fix some issues to reduce noise in coreclr sanitizers error output: dotnet/corefx#4804
    4. log new issues against existing bugs (to other people)
    5. add to build system \ process (corefx first, then coreclr)
  5. changed the title [-]Add runtime verification tools against existing tests[/-] [+]Add static and runtime verification tools against existing tests[/+] on Oct 24, 2016
  6. CIPop commented on Oct 24, 2016

    @CIPop
    ContributorAuthor

    Tracking adding static analyzers with this issue as well.

  7. mellinoe commented on Nov 11, 2016

    @mellinoe
    Contributor

    @CIPop Of the things in the original issue, how much have we enabled now, and how much do we think still needs to be invested in? I know we have started running some build-time analyzers on the managed code, and we have at least done some offline (i.e. not build-time) analysis of the native code. Are there more things we should be adding to build-time validation?

  8. CIPop commented on Nov 11, 2016

    @CIPop
    ContributorAuthor

    @mellinoe I just opened the issue observing that these tools were missing but I am not aware of any changes that have been made since.
    @steveharter might be able to answer your question.

    I've converted this into a checkbox issue to better track progress.

  9. weshaggard commented on Dec 12, 2017

    @weshaggard
    Member

    I believe we have all the tools we want enabled now and some tools just part of our security builds so we should be covered.

  10. transferred this issue fromdotnet/corefxon Jan 31, 2020
  11. added this to the 2.1.0 milestone on Jan 31, 2020
  12. ghost locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators on Jan 4, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions