Generic skeleton integration test#379
Conversation
|
Hi @crimson11, |
2d0976f to
fe72098
Compare
fe72098 to
6dac63e
Compare
@crimson11, Done |
b229be8 to
7b4392b
Compare
7b4392b to
244d45c
Compare
|
I will have a look at it tomorrow! |
aaa8d6a to
e051958
Compare
e051958 to
d6ffbd3
Compare
|
@ShoroukRamzy
should have no effect in this case. Because a typed proxy/proxy event uses the
Am I missing something here? I did not yet re-run/use your tests as picking it from the fork is "tedious" ;) |
@crimson11, You are absolutely correct, the consumer is looking at the correct memory location (data_storage->data()). However, the failure in the Generic-Generic interaction is caused by the provider side (GenericSkeletonEvent).
Because of this, the provider and consumer are using two different base addresses:
|
|
@ShoroukRamzy
|
yes exactly @crimson11 |
| } | ||
|
|
||
| } // namespace score::mw::com::impl::lola | ||
| } // namespace score::mw::com::impl::lola No newline at end of file |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Remove this file from the commit ... you only provide tests in this PR.
| @@ -0,0 +1,74 @@ | |||
| { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why did you duplicate the config file? Why not use the same config for all combinations of interactions?
| return 1; | ||
| auto& proxy = proxy_res.value(); | ||
|
|
||
| uint64_t received = 30; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why does received start with 30? You are using it as the loop-variable below? It should start with 0 (or 1)?
Otherwise it is confused with the "counter-value" sent by the provider ... which for some reason also starts with 30? What is the magic with 30 everywhere? :P
| @@ -0,0 +1,251 @@ | |||
| /******************************************************************************** | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You need only this test application for generic/typed interaction! You can remove all the other variants for generic/typed interaction.
See further comment below.
| } | ||
|
|
||
| template <typename Trait> | ||
| class MyTestService : public Trait::Base |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
See my initial comment! If you feel the need to show correct interaction with different event-data-sizes, then you just need this test and you add to your service-interface MyTestService additional event types (16 and 32 byte)
Overview
This PR significantly expands the integration testing suite by introducing tests for both Generic-Typed (type-erased Skeleton Provider with Strongly-Typed Proxy Consumer) and Generic-Generic (type-erased Skeleton Provider with type-erased Proxy Consumer) interactions.
This addresses this issue #261 and #311 by rigorously validating the underlying shared memory (SHM) communication mechanisms with various payload sizes (64, 32, 16, and 8 bytes) and configurations.
The tests strictly evaluate type-erased memory striding, boundary enforcements, and data integrity by spinning up a provider that sends 30 consecutive samples into a heavily constrained 5-slot ring buffer, forcing multiple buffer wrap-arounds.
Test Scope & Root Causes of Current Failures
Currently, all introduced test variants intentionally fail, successfully exposing critical bugs within the Generic skeleton implementation related to shared memory allocation and addressing. The failure modes depend on the payload size relative to std::max_align_t (which is assumed to be 32 bytes on the current architecture).
The identified root causes for these failures are:
1. Data Corruption (Expected: X, got: 0 or Y)
Affected Tests: All Generic-Generic interaction tests (64, 32, 8-byte payloads) and Generic-Typed tests with payloads > std::max_align_t (64-byte, 32-byte payloads).
Root Cause: The fundamental issue was an incorrect base pointer being returned for event data. The SkeletonMemoryManager::CreateGenericEventDataInCreatedSharedMemory and Skeleton::RegisterGeneric functions were erroneously returning a pointer to the EventDataStorage object itself, instead of the actual data buffer managed within that object (EventDataStorage::data()). This led both providers and consumers to miscalculate offsets, resulting in writes to unintended (often zero-initialized) memory locations and reads from those incorrect, zero-filled locations.
2. Boundary Check Crashes (Exit Code 134 - SIGABRT)
Affected Tests: Generic-Typed interaction tests with payloads < std::max_align_t (16-byte, 8-byte payloads).
Root Cause: This failure was caused by an incorrect capacity calculation for the shared memory array. The EventDataStorage's internal DynamicArray was being initialized with a capacity based on num_max_align_elements. For smaller payloads, this calculated capacity was often less than the numberOfSampleSlots specified in the configuration. When the consumer attempted to retrieve one beyond this physically undersized capacity, it resulted in out-of-bounds memory access, triggering assertions and process crashes.