Skip to content
New issue

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

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

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Skip branches in generated MoveNext() for singleton iterators #813

Merged
merged 17 commits into from May 10, 2020
Merged

Conversation

bert2
Copy link
Contributor

@bert2 bert2 commented Apr 13, 2020

This fixes #810 by skipping the two branches inside MoveNext() that will be generated when the iterator only yields once.

For instance, the iterator...

public class SingletonIterator
{
    public IEnumerable<string> Fetch()
    {
        yield return "one";
    }
}

...will result in a generated MoveNext() method that has no switch instruction, but a brfalse.s and a beq.s instruction instead:

<Fetch>d__0.MoveNext:
IL_0000:  ldarg.0     
IL_0001:  ldfld       UserQuery+SingletonIterator+<Fetch>d__0.<>1__state
IL_0006:  stloc.0     
IL_0007:  ldloc.0     
IL_0008:  brfalse.s   IL_0012
IL_000A:  br.s        IL_000C
IL_000C:  ldloc.0     
IL_000D:  ldc.i4.1    
IL_000E:  beq.s       IL_0014
IL_0010:  br.s        IL_0016
IL_0012:  br.s        IL_0018
IL_0014:  br.s        IL_0034
IL_0016:  ldc.i4.0    
IL_0017:  ret         
IL_0018:  ldarg.0     
IL_0019:  ldc.i4.m1   
IL_001A:  stfld       UserQuery+SingletonIterator+<Fetch>d__0.<>1__state
IL_001F:  nop         
IL_0020:  ldarg.0     
IL_0021:  ldstr       "one"
IL_0026:  stfld       UserQuery+SingletonIterator+<Fetch>d__0.<>2__current
IL_002B:  ldarg.0     
IL_002C:  ldc.i4.1    
IL_002D:  stfld       UserQuery+SingletonIterator+<Fetch>d__0.<>1__state
IL_0032:  ldc.i4.1    
IL_0033:  ret         
IL_0034:  ldarg.0     
IL_0035:  ldc.i4.m1   
IL_0036:  stfld       UserQuery+SingletonIterator+<Fetch>d__0.<>1__state
IL_003B:  ldc.i4.0    
IL_003C:  ret 

@MarcoRossignoli
Copy link
Collaborator

MarcoRossignoli commented Apr 15, 2020

You should add also a complete real test inside folder https://github.com/tonerdo/coverlet/tree/master/test/coverlet.core.tests/Coverage:

  1. Add a file named CoverageTest.Yield.cs
  2. Add a file named Instrumentation.Yield.cs and add a simple class like your failing sample like https://github.com/tonerdo/coverlet/blob/master/test/coverlet.core.tests/Samples/Instrumentation.SelectionStatements.cs#L5
  3. Inside CoverageTest.Yield.cs prepare and run real instrumentation test like https://github.com/tonerdo/coverlet/blob/master/test/coverlet.core.tests/Coverage/CoverageTests.SelectionStatements.cs#L14 read the comment as guide, copy same structure.

If you need to debug your test you have to simply change code like (CoverageTests.SelectionStatements.cs file sample)

  FunctionExecutor.RunInProcess(async (string[] pathSerialize) =>
                {
                    // Run load and call a delegate passing class as dynamic to simplify method call
                    CoveragePrepareResult coveragePrepareResult = await TestInstrumentationHelper.Run<SelectionStatements>(instance =>
                    {
                        // We call method to trigger coverage hits
                        instance.If(true);

                        // For now we have only async Run helper
                        return Task.CompletedTask;
                    }, persistPrepareResultToFile: pathSerialize[0], disableRestoreModules: true);

                    // we return 0 if we return something different assert fail
                    return 0;
                }, new string[] { path });

These real tests run in separate process so you cannot debug as is, you need to change in 2 place RunInProcess instead of Run and add disableRestoreModules: true) to avoid module restore at the end of instrumentation, this avoid error related to locked file.
After debugging you can revert removing parameters and calling correct out of proc run method.
You can assert expected number of branches with this https://github.com/tonerdo/coverlet/blob/master/test/coverlet.core.tests/Coverage/InstrumenterHelper.Assertions.cs#L87 feel free to run only in Debug configuration.

Let me know if you're in trouble.

@MarcoRossignoli MarcoRossignoli added * NO MERGE * The PR is not ready for merge yet (see discussion for detailed reasons) bug Something isn't working tenet-coverage Issue related to possible incorrect coverage labels Apr 15, 2020
@MarcoRossignoli
Copy link
Collaborator

MarcoRossignoli commented Apr 15, 2020

cc: @matteoerigozzi can you take a look too?

@bert2
Copy link
Contributor Author

bert2 commented Apr 15, 2020

Ok, I'll look into it.

I noticed one problem though: I'm unable to run the tests as described in CONTRIBUTING.md:

PS> dotnet --version
3.1.201
PS> dotnet restore; dotnet build --no-restore; dotnet pack
[...]
PS> dotnet test --no-build /p:CollectCoverage=true /p:Include=\"[coverlet.collector]*,[coverlet.core]*,[coverlet.msbuild.tasks]*\" /p:Exclude=\"[coverlet.core.tests.samples.netstandard]*,[coverlet.tests.xunit.extensions]*\"
MSBUILD : error MSB1006: Property is not valid.
Switch: [coverlet.core]*

For switch syntax, type "MSBuild -help"

The escaping of the list doesn't seem to work on my end. Is this guideline still accurate?

@MarcoRossignoli
Copy link
Collaborator

MarcoRossignoli commented Apr 15, 2020

You're inside powershell you need to escape differently https://github.com/tonerdo/coverlet/blob/master/Documentation/MSBuildIntegration.md#note-for-powershell--vsts-users

@bert2
Copy link
Contributor Author

bert2 commented Apr 15, 2020

Well that was easier than expected. Do you want me to squash those commits?

Copy link
Collaborator

@MarcoRossignoli MarcoRossignoli left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Well that was easier than expected. Do you want me to squash those commits?

No I'll squash on merge.

test/coverlet.core.tests/Coverage/CoverageTest.Yield.cs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
test/coverlet.core.tests/Coverage/CoverageTest.Yield.cs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
test/coverlet.core.tests/Coverage/CoverageTest.Yield.cs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@MarcoRossignoli
Copy link
Collaborator

I'm bit busy these days...update seems ok but I need to go a bit deeper to confirm, I'll come back asap!Thank's!

Copy link
Collaborator

@MarcoRossignoli MarcoRossignoli left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pattern recognition seems too much generic

src/coverlet.core/Symbols/CecilSymbolHelper.cs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@MarcoRossignoli
Copy link
Collaborator

/azp run

@azure-pipelines
Copy link

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

Copy link
Collaborator

@MarcoRossignoli MarcoRossignoli left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Some more tests, seems ok.

@bert2
Copy link
Contributor Author

bert2 commented Apr 19, 2020

Some more tests, seems ok.

Yup, that's right. Will also add some more unit tests (I couldn't come up with any unit test cases not already covered by the integration tests).

Copy link
Collaborator

@MarcoRossignoli MarcoRossignoli left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Some nits and a question on enumerable test.

@MarcoRossignoli MarcoRossignoli removed the * NO MERGE * The PR is not ready for merge yet (see discussion for detailed reasons) label May 10, 2020
@MarcoRossignoli
Copy link
Collaborator

/azp run

@azure-pipelines
Copy link

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

Copy link
Collaborator

@MarcoRossignoli MarcoRossignoli left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Great work!
I refactored a bit tests to be more clear.

@MarcoRossignoli
Copy link
Collaborator

MarcoRossignoli commented May 10, 2020

@bert2 feel free to take any other issue, if you like coverage one this is the query https://github.com/coverlet-coverage/coverlet/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Atenet-coverage maybe start from untriaged.
There aren't a lot of devs that likes lose himself in the rabbit hole(IL/Roslyn) 😅 , but there are al lot of stuff to learn on how runtime/code works.

@MarcoRossignoli
Copy link
Collaborator

CI ran but there were some issue between github and AzDo likely because we're in the middle of move btw this is the link of CI https://dev.azure.com/tonerdo/coverlet/_build/results?buildId=1023&view=results

@MarcoRossignoli MarcoRossignoli merged commit 3264ad3 into coverlet-coverage:master May 10, 2020
@bert2
Copy link
Contributor Author

bert2 commented May 11, 2020

@MarcoRossignoli it definitely was a very interesting journey :) I will probably look into some of the coverage bugs, however I'm not sure when I'll be able to spend that much time for it again.

@MarcoRossignoli
Copy link
Collaborator

MarcoRossignoli commented May 11, 2020

@MarcoRossignoli it definitely was a very interesting journey :) I will probably look into some of the coverage bugs, however I'm not sure when I'll be able to spend that much time for it again.

No props at all it's not mandatory it's oss!Thank's again for the PR and help!

@bert2
Copy link
Contributor Author

bert2 commented Nov 14, 2020

Hey @MarcoRossignoli, I wrote a CodeLens extension for Visual Studio that shows you the instructions of a method: https://github.com/bert2/microscope

Shameless self-promotion, I know, but it I think it could be quite useful when working on software like coverlet 😊

@MarcoRossignoli
Copy link
Collaborator

Thank you I'll give it a try for sure!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working tenet-coverage Issue related to possible incorrect coverage
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Uncovered branch in compiler-generated state machine for yield return
2 participants