#15936: Rethink Choice of Baseline Commit for Performance Tests -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Reporter: davide | Owner: davide Type: task | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: 8.6.3 Component: Test Suite | Version: 8.6.2 Resolution: | Keywords: performance | tests git notes Operating System: Unknown/Multiple | Architecture: | Unknown/Multiple Type of failure: None/Unknown | Test Case: Blocked By: | Blocking: Related Tickets: | Differential Rev(s): Wiki Page: | -------------------------------------+------------------------------------- Description changed by davide: Old description:
= Intro =
Currently we always use the previous commit when running performance tests. This works well in CI where we fully test each commit in sequence (and hence always have test results for the previous commit). Remember, test results are stored in git notes and are not by default shared between repositories (i.e. your local repo will only have performance results run locally on your machine). This is by design: we want to avoid comparing results form different machines.
Unfortunately This is not so effective when testing locally. The programmer may have only run a subset of performance tests on the previous commit, and often have not run the tests at all (this is notably true after performing a rebase: the previous commit has changed). We need to rethink how we pick a baseline commit.
= Goals =
* In all cases, do something sensible. * Giving a warning if conditions are not idea. Provide clear and simple instructions on how to get to the ideal case. * Give control over the baseline commit to the programmer via command line options. * Could make it a baseline branch where we still do git merge-base. That would be useful if you are branching from a different branch than master. * Give control over the baseline of local or ci to the programmer via command line options. * In general, performance tests should just work! No extra knowledge needed by the programmer. * If tests pass without warning now, then they should pass without warning later.
= Proposed Solution =
* When running performance tests, results will be compared to a baseline commit that is the merge base with master (most recent commit from master). If HEAD is already in master, then the previous commit is used instead. * If any locally generated performance results exist, they are used exclusively for the baseline. * Else if any CI generated performance results exist (and have been fetched), they are used exclusively for the baseline. * Else performance tests trivially pass, and a warning is given to the user.
To find the baseline commit: {{{ mergeBase = merge-base master HEAD baselineCommit = if mergeBase == HEAD then HEAD^ else mergeBase }}}
== Reasoning ==
* We want each commit in master not to introduce a significant change in performance: hence we compare commits in mater to the previous commit. * If not on master (1 or more ahead and 0 or more commits behind master). We assume that the intention is to create a patch where all new commits will ultimately be squashed and placed on top of master as a single commit. On the other hand we don't want to consider changes in master from after we branched. Instead of using master HEAD as the baseline, we use the commit from which we branched from master (i.e. the merge base). In other words we are concerned only with the change in performance introduced by the newly crated commits.
= Handling Expected changes =
See [https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Performance/Tests#ExpectedPerformanceC... expected performance changes].
If on master or an ancestor commit, the baseline is the previous commit and we can simply allow performance changes as specified in the current commit's message (this is already the behaviour of the test driver).
If we have branched from master, then we may have multiple commits from the baseline commit to HEAD, each of which may have, possibly contradictory, expected performance changes. If any expected changes exist, aggregate them. We introduce an explicit "Metric Unchanged" option and aggregate per test taking the newest commit. "Metric Unchanged" is necessary in the case that a new commit undoes a performance change such that a metric returns to the baseline value. The aggregate version should be output so that the programmer knows what to put in the commit message after squashing the commits.
== Reasoning ==
creating new commits with expected changes is an interactive process. The programmer adds a 1 or more commits, runs the tests, then adds expected performance changes to a commit message. It would be too inconvenient to force the programmer to change old commit messages, and too verbose/annoying to have them enter a full list of expected changes in each commit. Hence we must aggregate the expected changes.
This is of a bit risky as it is a context sensitive change in the semantics of expected changes. If we e.g. intend not to squash the commits, then all the sudden the expected changes mean something very different (change to the previous commit, not some distant baseline commit). Perhaps we just show a warning in this case.
We must figure out what commit messages will be used in GitLab on merge. Does the programmer have to remember to sort out expected changes before merge some how?
= Use cases =
* We do not distinguish between full/partial performance results being available for the baseline commit: that would require checking out the baseline commit and extracting the full list of tests. *
== Locally validate a commit from master ==
{{{ git checkout master~5 ./validate }}}
Baseline Commit: HEAD^ == master~6
|| BaselinelocalResults || BaselineCIResults || Infos || Warnings ||
||||= Case =||||||= Behaviour =|| ||= Baseline local Results? =||= Baseline CI Results? =||= Baseline local/CI =||= Infos =||= Warnings =|| || Yes/Partial || - || Local || If HEAD tests is not subset or eq to Baseline tests: "If relevant tests exist on baseline, checkout baseline and running those tests OR fetch notes and use --baseline-ci || Warnings || || No || Yes || CI || "Using CI numbers, suggest running locally for more accurate results" || Warnings || || No || No || - || || "No baseline results, tests trivially pass" + suggest fetch notes or locally run tests on baseline ||
== Locally validate a commit from master ==
{{{ git checkout master~5 ./validate }}}
Baseline Commit: HEAD^ == master~6
|| BaselinelocalResults || BaselineCIResults || Infos || Warnings ||
||||= Case =||||||= Behaviour =|| ||= Baseline local Results? =||= Baseline CI Results? =||= Baseline local/CI =||= Infos =||= Warnings =|| || Yes/Partial || - || Local || If HEAD tests is not subset or eq to Baseline tests: "If relevant tests exist on baseline, checkout baseline and running those tests OR fetch notes and use --baseline-ci || Warnings || || No || Yes || CI || "Using CI numbers, suggest running locally for more accurate results" || Warnings || || No || No || - || || "No baseline results, tests trivially pass" + suggest fetch notes or locally run tests on baseline ||
= From the perspective of the CI =
?? From CI, "local" is actually "CI". SO replace "is CI results available" with "no" and replace "Is local results available" with "is CI results available"
= When to automatically fetch CI results? =
If baseline commit doesn't have local nor CI results, and is old enough such that we expect CI to have been run (WARNING we would need to know the merge time, not the time that the commit was created, which could be long before it was merged? Or will GitLab bump the commit time on merge?)
New description: = Intro = Currently we always use the previous commit when running performance tests. This works well in CI where we fully test each commit in sequence (and hence always have test results for the previous commit). Remember, test results are stored in git notes and are not by default shared between repositories (i.e. your local repo will only have performance results when they were run locally on your machine). This is by design: we want to avoid comparing results form different machines. Unfortunately This is not so effective when testing locally. The programmer may have only run a subset of performance tests on the previous commit, and often have not run the tests at all (this is notably true after performing a rebase: the previous commit has changed). We need to rethink how we pick a baseline commit. = Goals = * In all cases, do something sensible. * Giving a warning if conditions are not idea. Provide clear and simple instructions on how to get to the ideal case. * Give control over the baseline commit to the programmer via command line options. * Could make it a baseline branch where we still do git merge-base. That would be useful if you are branching from a different branch than master. * Give control over the baseline of local or ci to the programmer via command line options. * In general, performance tests should just work! No extra knowledge needed by the programmer. * If tests pass without warning now, then they should pass without warning later. = Proposed Solution = * When running performance tests, results will be compared to a baseline commit that is the merge base with master (most recent commit from master). If HEAD is already in master, then the previous commit is used instead. * If any locally generated performance results exist, they are used exclusively for the baseline. * Else if any CI generated performance results exist (and have been fetched), they are used exclusively for the baseline. * Else performance tests trivially pass, and a warning is given to the user. To find the baseline commit: {{{ mergeBase = merge-base master HEAD baselineCommit = if mergeBase == HEAD then HEAD^ else mergeBase }}} == Reasoning == * We want each commit in master not to introduce a significant change in performance: hence we compare commits in mater to the previous commit. * If not on master (1 or more ahead and 0 or more commits behind master). We assume that the intention is to create a patch where all new commits will ultimately be squashed and placed on top of master as a single commit. On the other hand we don't want to consider changes in master from after we branched. Instead of using master HEAD as the baseline, we use the commit from which we branched from master (i.e. the merge base). In other words we are concerned only with the change in performance introduced by the newly crated commits. = Handling Expected changes = TODO this is the complicated part. What happens when the programmer is not planning on squashing commits and has many commits with expected changes :-( See [https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Performance/Tests#ExpectedPerformanceC... expected performance changes]. If on master or an ancestor commit, the baseline is the previous commit and we can simply allow performance changes as specified in the current commit's message (this is already the behaviour of the test driver). If we have branched from master, then we may have multiple commits from the baseline commit to HEAD, each of which may have, possibly contradictory, expected performance changes. If any expected changes exist, aggregate them. We introduce an explicit "Metric Unchanged" option and aggregate per test where newer allowed changes overwrite older allowed changes. "Metric Unchanged" is necessary in the case that a new commit undoes a performance change such that a metric returns to the baseline value. The aggregate version should be output so that the programmer knows what to put in the commit message after squashing the commits. A warning should be given if expected changes appear in any commit inbetween HEAD and the baseline commit. In that warning Suggest e.g. "--baseline HEAD^ if not planning on squashing this commit" == Reasoning == creating new commits with expected changes is an interactive process. The programmer adds a 1 or more commits, runs the tests, then adds expected performance changes to a commit message. It would be too inconvenient to force the programmer to change old commit messages, and too verbose/annoying to have them enter a full list of expected changes in each commit. Hence we must aggregate the expected changes. This is of a bit risky as it is a context sensitive change in the semantics of expected changes. If we e.g. intend not to squash the commits, then all the sudden the expected changes mean something very different (change to the previous commit, not some distant baseline commit). Perhaps we just show a warning in this case. We must figure out what commit messages will be used in GitLab on merge. Does the programmer have to remember to sort out expected changes before merge some how? = Use cases = * We do not distinguish between full/partial performance results being available for the baseline commit: that would require checking out the baseline commit and extracting the full list of tests. * || BaselinelocalResults || BaselineCIResults || Infos || Warnings || ||||||= Case =||||||= Behaviour =|| ||= Platform =||= Baseline local Results? =||= Baseline CI Results? =||= Baseline local/CI =||= Infos =||= Warnings =|| || Local || Yes/Partial || - || Local || If HEAD tests is not subset or eq to Baseline tests: "If relevant tests exist on baseline, checkout baseline and running those tests OR fetch notes and use --baseline-ci || || || Local || No || Yes || CI || "Using CI numbers, suggest running locally for more accurate results" || || || Local || No || No || - || || "No baseline results, tests trivially pass" + suggest fetch notes or locally run tests on baseline || || CI |||| Yes || CI || || || || CI |||| No || - || || "No results. CI is not yet finished, or CI has failed for the baseline commit or CI hasn’t fetched" || = When to automatically fetch CI results? = Fetch if: * Testing locally (not a ci run) AND * Baseline commit doesn't have local nor CI results (before fetch) AND * Baseline commit is an ancestor of master. If fetching, suggest a command line option: --no-fetch. This is most convenient for local testing avoids fetch on ci, but may result in unwanted/wasted fetches -- -- Ticket URL: http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/15936#comment:4 GHC http://www.haskell.org/ghc/ The Glasgow Haskell Compiler