Ready tests for 6.9 version #6465

pow2clk · 2024-03-26T19:59:31Z

In experimenting with bumping the max shader model version in the mesh nodes branch, many unrelated tests started failing due to being overly-sensitive to ordering, particularly for metadata. This uses regular expressions or order-independent checks to make these tests more robust so they will be able to handle the change to 6.9 when it comes to main, whatever form that takes.

Followup to #6432

node shader validation tests depended heavily on metadata numbers and order. This make them robust so they can work with the 6.9 changes or without

deduplication of the 1,9 tuple made the test fail. Using -DAG checks allows the order to work anyway

github-actions · 2024-03-26T20:00:18Z

⚠️ C/C++ code formatter, clang-format found issues in your code. ⚠️

You can test this locally with the following command:

git-clang-format --diff e4fa1c518413a3ca871a1b1699308b6db0ede892 b94408dcb6dbbcb6fa84d4efb1440b45280656a1 -- tools/clang/unittests/HLSL/ValidationTest.cpp

View the diff from clang-format here.

diff --git a/tools/clang/unittests/HLSL/ValidationTest.cpp b/tools/clang/unittests/HLSL/ValidationTest.cpp
index 26bc6e88..aeb83571 100644
--- a/tools/clang/unittests/HLSL/ValidationTest.cpp
+++ b/tools/clang/unittests/HLSL/ValidationTest.cpp
@@ -4274,7 +4274,7 @@ TEST_F(ValidationTest, ComputeNodeCompatibility) {
       {"!\"node01\", null, null, !([0-9]+)}\n"
        "!\\1 = !{i32 8, i32 15"}, // original: node shader
       {"!\"node01\", null, null, !\\1}\n"
-       "!\\1 = !{i32 8, i32 5"},  // changed to: compute shader
+       "!\\1 = !{i32 8, i32 5"}, // changed to: compute shader
       "Compute entry 'node01' has unexpected node shader metadata", true);
   RewriteAssemblyCheckMsg(
       L"..\\DXILValidation\\compute_node_compatibility.hlsl", "lib_6_8",
@@ -4282,7 +4282,7 @@ TEST_F(ValidationTest, ComputeNodeCompatibility) {
       {"!\"node02\", null, null, !([0-9]+)}\n"
        "!\\1 = !{i32 8, i32 15"}, // original: node shader
       {"!\"node02\", null, null, !\\1}\n"
-       "!\\1 = !{i32 8, i32 5"},  // changed to: compute shader
+       "!\\1 = !{i32 8, i32 5"}, // changed to: compute shader
       "Compute entry 'node02' has unexpected node shader metadata", true);
   RewriteAssemblyCheckMsg(
       L"..\\DXILValidation\\compute_node_compatibility.hlsl", "lib_6_8",
@@ -4290,7 +4290,7 @@ TEST_F(ValidationTest, ComputeNodeCompatibility) {
       {"!\"node03\", null, null, !([0-9]+)}\n"
        "!\\1 = !{i32 8, i32 15"}, // original: node shader
       {"!\"node03\", null, null, !\\1}\n"
-       "!\\1 = !{i32 8, i32 5"},  // changed to: compute shader
+       "!\\1 = !{i32 8, i32 5"}, // changed to: compute shader
       "Compute entry 'node03' has unexpected node shader metadata", true);
   RewriteAssemblyCheckMsg(
       L"..\\DXILValidation\\compute_node_compatibility.hlsl", "lib_6_8",
@@ -4298,7 +4298,7 @@ TEST_F(ValidationTest, ComputeNodeCompatibility) {
       {"!\"node04\", null, null, !([0-9]+)}\n"
        "!\\1 = !{i32 8, i32 15"}, // original: node shader
       {"!\"node04\", null, null, !\\1}\n"
-       "!\\1 = !{i32 8, i32 5"},  // changed to: compute shader
+       "!\\1 = !{i32 8, i32 5"}, // changed to: compute shader
       "Compute entry 'node04' has unexpected node shader metadata", true);
   RewriteAssemblyCheckMsg(
       L"..\\DXILValidation\\compute_node_compatibility.hlsl", "lib_6_8",
@@ -4307,8 +4307,8 @@ TEST_F(ValidationTest, ComputeNodeCompatibility) {
        "!\\1 = !{i32 8, i32 15, i32 13, i32 2"}, // original: node shader
                                                  // coalesing launch type
       {"!\"node04\", null, null, !\\1}\n"
-       "!\\1 = !{i32 8, i32 5, i32 13, i32 3"},  // changed to: compute shader
-                                                 // thread launch type
+       "!\\1 = !{i32 8, i32 5, i32 13, i32 3"}, // changed to: compute shader
+                                                // thread launch type
       "Compute entry 'node04' has unexpected node shader metadata", true);
 }
 
@@ -4419,11 +4419,13 @@ TEST_F(ValidationTest, NodeInputMultiplicity) {
        "!\\2 = !{!([0-9]+)}",                   // input records
        "= !{i32 1, i32 33, i32 2, !([0-9]+)}"}, // end of output
       {"= !{i32 8, i32 15, i32 13, i32 1,\\1i32 20, !\\2\\3"
-       "!\\2 = !{!\\4, !100}",                    // multiple input records
+       "!\\2 = !{!\\4, !100}", // multiple input records
        "= !{i32 1, i32 33, i32 2, !\\1}\n"
-       "!100 = !{i32 1, i32 97, i32 2, !\\1}\n"}, // extra DispatchNodeInputRecord
+       "!100 = !{i32 1, i32 97, i32 2, !\\1}\n"}, // extra
+                                                  // DispatchNodeInputRecord
       "node shader 'node01' may not have more than one input record \\(2 are "
-      "declared\\)", true);
+      "declared\\)",
+      true);
 
   RewriteAssemblyCheckMsg(
       L"..\\DXILValidation\\node_input_compatibility.hlsl", "lib_6_8",
@@ -4432,11 +4434,12 @@ TEST_F(ValidationTest, NodeInputMultiplicity) {
        "!\\2 = !{!([0-9]+)}",                   // input records
        "= !{i32 1, i32 33, i32 2, !([0-9]+)}"}, // end of output
       {"= !{i32 8, i32 15, i32 13, i32 1,\\1i32 20, !\\2\\3"
-       "!\\2 = !{!\\4, !100}",                    // multiple input records
+       "!\\2 = !{!\\4, !100}", // multiple input records
        "= !{i32 1, i32 33, i32 2, !\\1}\n"
        "!100 = !{i32 1, i32 9, i32 2, !\\1}\n"}, // extra EmptyNodeInput
       "node shader 'node01' may not have more than one input record \\(2 are "
-      "declared\\)", true);
+      "declared\\)",
+      true);
 
   RewriteAssemblyCheckMsg(
       L"..\\DXILValidation\\node_input_compatibility.hlsl", "lib_6_8",
@@ -4445,11 +4448,12 @@ TEST_F(ValidationTest, NodeInputMultiplicity) {
        "!\\2 = !{!([0-9]+)}",                   // input records
        "= !{i32 1, i32 33, i32 2, !([0-9]+)}"}, // end of output
       {"= !{i32 8, i32 15, i32 13, i32 2,\\1i32 20, !\\2\\3"
-       "!\\2 = !{!\\4, !100}",                    // multiple input records
+       "!\\2 = !{!\\4, !100}", // multiple input records
        "= !{i32 1, i32 33, i32 2, !\\1}\n"
        "!100 = !{i32 1, i32 65, i32 2, !\\1}\n"}, // extra GroupNodeInputRecords
       "node shader 'node02' may not have more than one input record \\(2 are "
-      "declared\\)", true);
+      "declared\\)",
+      true);
 
   RewriteAssemblyCheckMsg(
       L"..\\DXILValidation\\node_input_compatibility.hlsl", "lib_6_8",
@@ -4458,11 +4462,12 @@ TEST_F(ValidationTest, NodeInputMultiplicity) {
        "!\\2 = !{!([0-9]+)}",                   // input records
        "= !{i32 1, i32 33, i32 2, !([0-9]+)}"}, // end of output
       {"= !{i32 8, i32 15, i32 13, i32 2,\\1i32 20, !\\2\\3"
-       "!\\2 = !{!\\4, !100}",                    // multiple input records
+       "!\\2 = !{!\\4, !100}", // multiple input records
        "= !{i32 1, i32 33, i32 2, !\\1}\n"
        "!100 = !{i32 1, i32 9, i32 2, !\\1}\n"}, // extra EmptyNodeInput
       "node shader 'node02' may not have more than one input record \\(2 are "
-      "declared\\)", true);
+      "declared\\)",
+      true);
 
   RewriteAssemblyCheckMsg(
       L"..\\DXILValidation\\node_input_compatibility.hlsl", "lib_6_8",
@@ -4471,11 +4476,12 @@ TEST_F(ValidationTest, NodeInputMultiplicity) {
        "!\\2 = !{!([0-9]+)}",                   // input records
        "= !{i32 1, i32 33, i32 2, !([0-9]+)}"}, // end of output
       {"= !{i32 8, i32 15, i32 13, i32 3,\\1i32 20, !\\2\\3"
-       "!\\2 = !{!\\4, !100}",                    // multiple input records
+       "!\\2 = !{!\\4, !100}", // multiple input records
        "= !{i32 1, i32 33, i32 2, !\\1}\n"
        "!100 = !{i32 1, i32 33, i32 2, !\\1}\n"}, // extra ThreadNodeInputRecord
       "node shader 'node03' may not have more than one input record \\(2 are "
-      "declared\\)", true);
+      "declared\\)",
+      true);
 
   RewriteAssemblyCheckMsg(
       L"..\\DXILValidation\\node_input_compatibility.hlsl", "lib_6_8",
@@ -4484,12 +4490,12 @@ TEST_F(ValidationTest, NodeInputMultiplicity) {
        "!\\2 = !{!([0-9]+)}",                   // input records
        "= !{i32 1, i32 33, i32 2, !([0-9]+)}"}, // end of output
       {"= !{i32 8, i32 15, i32 13, i32 3,\\1i32 20, !\\2\\3"
-       "!\\2 = !{!\\4, !100}",                    // multiple input records
+       "!\\2 = !{!\\4, !100}", // multiple input records
        "= !{i32 1, i32 33, i32 2, !\\1}\n"
        "!100 = !{i32 1, i32 9, i32 2, !\\1}\n"}, // extra EmptyNodeInput
       "node shader 'node03' may not have more than one input record \\(2 are "
-      "declared\\)", true);
-
+      "declared\\)",
+      true);
 }
 
 TEST_F(ValidationTest, CacheInitWithMinPrec) {

Check this box to apply formatting changes to this branch.

damyanp · 2024-03-26T21:48:09Z

tools/clang/unittests/HLSL/ValidationTest.cpp

@@ -4310,88 +4320,88 @@ TEST_F(ValidationTest, NodeInputCompatibility) {
 RewriteAssemblyCheckMsg(
 L"..\\DXILValidation\\node_input_compatibility.hlsl", "lib_6_8",
 pArguments.data(), 2, nullptr, 0,
- {"!13 = !{i32 1, i32 97"}, // DispatchNodeInputRecord
- {"!13 = !{i32 1, i32 65"}, // GroupNodeInputRecords
+ {"= !{i32 1, i32 97"}, // DispatchNodeInputRecord


Is there a reason this uses a different pattern to the ones above that were verifying that the thing on the left of the = matched?

If by the above, you mean the pattern matching in ComputeNodeCompatibility, that one requires repeating some of the metadata references in the replacement text, so they need to be captured. In this case, we're just changing an integer on the right side of the equation. The shader is simpler and this is sufficient to match it.

Actually, that's true of the below, but not so much the above. I suppose it could be simpler there.

Okay, I've reminded myself that in the above case, we have several node entries that have the same metadata. To distinguish and alter them independently, we need to bring in more information including the metadata that identifies the function in question.

Without this level of specificity, each replacement will alter the shader or launch type data for all matching disassembly. That happens to work, but it's not really what's meant to be tested.

Did we need to copy any updates to these changes back into the mesh nodes branch?

There are no unique updates here. These commits are all copied from those that were part of #6436. Nothing has changed. This is the copy from there to here.

tools/clang/test/CodeGenDXIL/hlsl/objects/NodeObjects/node-objects-metadata.hlsl

tex3d · 2024-04-01T21:18:10Z

tools/clang/test/SemaHLSL/hlsl/objects/texture/CalculateLODExtraDiag.hlsl

@@ -86,7 +86,7 @@ void node02()

 // expected-note@+2 {{declared here}}
 [Shader("vertex")]
-float4 vs(float2 a :A) :SV_POSTION {
+float4 vs(float2 a :A) :SV_Position {


What happened here? Did this cause some sort of failure? The original should have been equivalent.

The original misspelled "POSITION". It was an incidental change. I altered the capitalization as I think it makes the error easier to spot.

tex3d · 2024-04-01T21:20:56Z

tools/clang/unittests/HLSL/ValidationTest.cpp

@@ -4310,88 +4320,88 @@ TEST_F(ValidationTest, NodeInputCompatibility) {
 RewriteAssemblyCheckMsg(
 L"..\\DXILValidation\\node_input_compatibility.hlsl", "lib_6_8",
 pArguments.data(), 2, nullptr, 0,
- {"!13 = !{i32 1, i32 97"}, // DispatchNodeInputRecord
- {"!13 = !{i32 1, i32 65"}, // GroupNodeInputRecords
+ {"= !{i32 1, i32 97"}, // DispatchNodeInputRecord


Did we need to copy any updates to these changes back into the mesh nodes branch?

pow2clk

@tex3d, if you're satisfied with my answers, please resolve the conversations.

tools/clang/test/CodeGenDXIL/hlsl/objects/NodeObjects/node-objects-metadata.hlsl

pow2clk · 2024-04-16T22:51:22Z

tools/clang/test/SemaHLSL/hlsl/objects/texture/CalculateLODExtraDiag.hlsl

@@ -86,7 +86,7 @@ void node02()

 // expected-note@+2 {{declared here}}
 [Shader("vertex")]
-float4 vs(float2 a :A) :SV_POSTION {
+float4 vs(float2 a :A) :SV_Position {


The original misspelled "POSITION". It was an incidental change. I altered the capitalization as I think it makes the error easier to spot.

pow2clk · 2024-04-16T22:55:21Z

tools/clang/unittests/HLSL/ValidationTest.cpp

@@ -4310,88 +4320,88 @@ TEST_F(ValidationTest, NodeInputCompatibility) {
 RewriteAssemblyCheckMsg(
 L"..\\DXILValidation\\node_input_compatibility.hlsl", "lib_6_8",
 pArguments.data(), 2, nullptr, 0,
- {"!13 = !{i32 1, i32 97"}, // DispatchNodeInputRecord
- {"!13 = !{i32 1, i32 65"}, // GroupNodeInputRecords
+ {"= !{i32 1, i32 97"}, // DispatchNodeInputRecord


There are no unique updates here. These commits are all copied from those that were part of #6436. Nothing has changed. This is the copy from there to here.

pow2clk added 4 commits March 26, 2024 10:02

Robustify node shader validation tests

5d0a294

node shader validation tests depended heavily on metadata numbers and order. This make them robust so they can work with the 6.9 changes or without

correct file name typo

480b8da

make node-objects-metadata more robust

5d78c4d

deduplication of the 1,9 tuple made the test fail. Using -DAG checks allows the order to work anyway

incidental typo fix

b94408d

chore: autopublish 2024-03-26T20:01:07Z

7b8147c

damyanp reviewed Mar 26, 2024

View reviewed changes

damyanp approved these changes Mar 29, 2024

View reviewed changes

tex3d approved these changes Apr 1, 2024

View reviewed changes

pow2clk commented Apr 16, 2024

View reviewed changes

pow2clk enabled auto-merge (squash) April 17, 2024 17:44

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Ready tests for 6.9 version #6465

Ready tests for 6.9 version #6465

pow2clk commented Mar 26, 2024

github-actions bot commented Mar 26, 2024 •

edited by pow2clk

damyanp Mar 26, 2024

pow2clk Mar 26, 2024

pow2clk Mar 26, 2024

pow2clk Mar 28, 2024

tex3d Apr 1, 2024

pow2clk Apr 16, 2024

tex3d Apr 1, 2024

pow2clk Apr 16, 2024

tex3d Apr 1, 2024

pow2clk left a comment

pow2clk Apr 16, 2024

pow2clk Apr 16, 2024

Ready tests for 6.9 version #6465

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Ready tests for 6.9 version #6465

Conversation

pow2clk commented Mar 26, 2024

github-actions bot commented Mar 26, 2024 • edited by pow2clk

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

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

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

pow2clk left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

github-actions bot commented Mar 26, 2024 •

edited by pow2clk