跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开中文介绍

Review testdata changes

本技能帮助判断编译器测试输出差异是否符合代码改动意图,分别审查用户可见的诊断信息和内部输出,查找可能隐藏的回归,并在自动更新后检查测试。

原文查看原文说明

Instructions for judging whether changes to file test output (`// CHECK:STDOUT:` and `// CHECK:STDERR:` lines) are correct, which changes are acceptable churn, and which are regressions in disguise.

carbon-language/carbon-lang星标 33,929(GitHub 33,929 + cccskills 0)

实测评分 未实测

查看安装方法

适用场景

  • 审查自动更新后的测试输出
  • 核对诊断信息变化是否合理
  • 为内部输出变化查找原因
  • 检查测试名称和预期值

中文介绍

功能

本技能介绍如何判断 Carbon 工具链测试中 // CHECK:STDOUT: 和 // CHECK:STDERR: 行的更新是否正确。自动更新后测试可能通过,但这并不能证明新行为符合预期。审查时要为每项变化说明原因,并分别检查用户可见的诊断信息(标准错误)和内部表示(标准输出)。指令、类型和控制流等结构性变化需要逐项解释;重命名和位置编号变化则可能是机械性变化。将诊断变化与更新前的预测对照,并在更新结果收敛后检查测试运行情况和文件名前缀。

适用场景

测试输出自动更新后,需要判断是否可以接受差异时,可以使用本技能。重构期间检查意外的诊断变化,或确认内部输出变化是否能由代码改动解释时,也适用。

使用示例

  • “请检查这些测试输出差异是否符合代码改动的意图。”
  • “请分别整理标准错误和标准输出的变化,并找出无法解释的部分。”
  • “请列出更新测试输出后需要完成的检查。”

注意事项

本技能不要求手动编辑 // CHECK:STDOUT: 或 // CHECK:STDERR: 行。检查过程涉及代码库的测试更新流程和运行测试。

本介绍由 AI(OpenAI Codex)根据公开的 SKILL.md 撰写。准确的规格请查看下方原文。

文档检查

AI 根据 SKILL.md 的内容检查了需要注意的操作和使用前提。评分只依据实际运行的结果(实测对比)。

安全性发送数据、删除文件、执行命令等是否有说明
B部分不足更新脚本会覆盖原有预期值,资料要求每次更新后检查差异。
安装难易度所需工具和 API 密钥是否少且有说明
B部分不足需要代码库中的测试更新流程和测试运行环境,但未提供安装说明。

不计入评分。 由 AI(OpenAI Codex)于 2026年10月26日 评估。仅供参考,安装前请同时查看原文。

如果您认为评估有误,请申请复核

请写明哪一项有误以及原因。无需登录。我们会对照 SKILL.md 重新评估,并在此处更新结果。

此表单受 reCAPTCHA 保护,适用 Google 的隐私权政策和服务条款。

包含的文件(1)

  • SKILL.md16.5 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

Review testdata changes

<!-- Part of the Carbon Language project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM Exceptions. See /LICENSE for license information. SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception -->

Introduction

Most toolchain work moves file test output. ./toolchain/autoupdate_testdata.py rewrites the // CHECK:STDOUT: and // CHECK:STDERR: lines in toolchain/*/testdata/ to match current behavior, so after running it the tests pass again whether or not the new behavior is right. Deciding that the new output is the output you wanted is a separate, manual step, and it is the step this skill covers.

Three skills divide the work:

[!IMPORTANT] Never hand-edit // CHECK:STDOUT: or // CHECK:STDERR: lines. Everything below is about changing the code until the generated output is right, never about editing the output to match the code.

The rule that generates all the others

Every line of testdata churn must have a cause you can name. Not "it is similar to the other changes", not "the tests pass now" — an actual sentence saying which code change produced it and why that is the intended result.

A diff you cannot narrate is a diff you have not reviewed. Changes you cannot explain are where regressions hide, because a regression and an intended change look exactly alike once the autoupdater has written them down.

[!CAUTION] Autoupdating is destructive to your evidence. Once the autoupdater has run, the previous expectations are gone from the working copy. Read the diff after every autoupdate run, and if something changed for a reason you cannot name, fix the code before autoupdating again. Recovering the old expectations later means reverting and re-running.

STDERR and STDOUT are different kinds of evidence

Treat them separately; they have different standards of proof.

STDERR is user-visible behavior. These are the diagnostics a Carbon programmer sees. A change here is a change to the language implementation as users experience it, so each one needs an individual justification. For a refactoring, the expected STDERR diff is empty.

STDOUT is internal representation. SemIR dumps, parse trees, LLVM IR. Users never see it. Churn here is normal and often unavoidable, so the standard is not "no change" but "no change I cannot account for".

For a change that is supposed to preserve behavior, write the list of accepted STDERR changes down before you autoupdate, and keep it current. Order matters more than form: written first, the list is a prediction the diff can falsify; written afterwards, it is a description of whatever happened, and describes a regression exactly as well as an intended change.

The list does not have to be a deliverable. Scratch notes you never publish do the job, because the work is in committing to the list, not in presenting it. What a reader needs is not the list but its exceptions: diagnostics that changed without being predicted, and predictions that did not occur. Both are findings. The matches are not, and reporting them buries the two entries that matter.

Judging STDOUT churn

Sort each STDOUT change into mechanical or structural.

Mechanical churn

Expected, and cheap to accept in bulk once you have confirmed the pattern:

  • Renaming. An instruction, type, or scope prints under a new name.
  • Positional name renumbering. Names like %x.loc18_46.3 embed a line, column, and disambiguating index. Two different events move them:
    • Adding or removing an instruction at a location renumbers the rest, so a single removed instruction can show up as many changed lines in the same block. Confirm the cascade is a cascade before accepting it as one.
    • Adding or removing a diagnostic moves the source lines themselves, so the line component changes everywhere below it in the file. See Autoupdate to a fixed point.
  • Fingerprint-derived names. Mangled names and some scope names are derived from a hash of their inputs. If you changed a hashed input, these move. Confirm that each such difference is only the fingerprint, and not a fingerprint difference concealing a structural one.

[!TIP] Mechanical churn is usually wide and shallow: the same substitution, repeated across many files. If a "mechanical" pattern needs a different explanation in each file, it is not mechanical.

Structural churn

Each of these needs its own explanation:

  • Instructions appearing or disappearing.
  • Changed [concrete = ...], [symbolic = ...], or other constant-value annotations.
  • Changed types on existing instructions.
  • Changed control flow: new or removed blocks, changed branch targets.
  • Raw instruction ids renumbering in --dump-raw-sem-ir output when you did not intend to change the id layout.

Fewer instructions is not automatically better

A diff that removes instructions looks like an optimization. Whether it is one depends on what the changed function owes its caller, and two functions can produce the same shrinking diff for opposite reasons:

  • A function that only needs a constant value, but built instructions on the way to it, was doing wasted work. Dropping them and using the constant directly is correct, and the shorter output reflects that.
  • A function whose caller needs a non-canonical instruction can be made shorter the same way, by using the constant instead of creating an instruction of its own — and that is wrong. The instruction carries location information, and symbolic constant substitution operates on it; the constant value alone loses both.

The instruction count is identical evidence in both cases, so it cannot be the thing you judge. Decide what the function is required to produce; the count follows from that.

The same reasoning runs in reverse: a diff that adds instructions is not automatically a regression.

Judging STDERR churn

A diagnostic's authority depends on the file's prefix

The fail_ and todo_ prefixes (see Toolchain tests) say how much the recorded diagnostics are worth:

  • fail_... — the test should and does produce errors. The recorded diagnostic is the specification. Changing it is a user-visible behavior change and needs justification on its own merits.
  • fail_todo_... — the test produces errors (or crashes) but shouldn't, or produces the wrong errors. The recorded diagnostic is explicitly not the specification; the file exists to record that today's behavior is wrong. Changing it replaces one wrong answer with another. That is acceptable when you can say why the new message follows from your change and why it is no further from the intended eventual behavior — which, for many such files, is no diagnostic at all.
  • todo_fail_... — the test should produce errors but does not. Gaining a diagnostic here may be progress, not a regression. Either way the file must be renamed, since the framework requires a fail_ prefix on any file that errors: fail_... if it now produces the right error, fail_todo_... if the error is the wrong one. Both renames make the test pass, so record which case it is instead of letting the rename settle it.
  • todo_... — behavior is wrong but produces no errors, and shouldn't. Gaining a diagnostic here is a regression unless you can argue otherwise.

[!IMPORTANT] This is a reason to look at the filename before judging a diagnostic change, not a license to ignore todo_ files. "It was already broken" does not excuse making it differently broken for no reason.

Reclassifying tests

If your change moves a test between the states above, the prefix must move with it: when the test is fixed, when it starts failing, and when it starts failing differently. The correspondence between the fail_ prefix and whether compilation actually failed is enforced by the test framework, not by the autoupdater, so it surfaces when you run bazelisk test and not when you autoupdate. Autoupdating is not a substitute for running the tests.

Only that half of the name is checked. Nothing enforces todo_, so a file whose behavior you have just fixed can keep its todo_ prefix indefinitely and still pass. A missing fail_ stops the build; a stale todo_ is silent, and is yours to catch.

When a fix drops a file's prefix, also check that the file still belongs where it is and that its comments do not still describe the old broken behavior.

Vaguer diagnostics are a signal, not a verdict

When a diagnostic becomes less specific — a general "unsupported" message replacing one that named the problem — that usually means a code path stopped finding information it previously had. Sometimes that is correct: the information was misleading, and the old message was confidently wrong.

Do not accept it silently and do not reject it reflexively. Say which direction it moved and whether the new message is closer to or further from the eventual intended behavior.

Signals in the shape of the diff

Zero churn is a result

If you removed something you believed was doing work and no testdata moved, that is not a missing test run — it is the proof that the thing was a no-op. Say so explicitly; it is one of the strongest pieces of evidence a refactoring can produce.

The converse is also informative. If you expected a path to churn and it didn't, either your model of the code is wrong or that path is untested. Find out which, and consider adding a test before continuing.

Churn should be proportional to the change

  • Wide churn from a narrow change means your model of the code is wrong. Do not autoupdate over it. Find the structural mistake first.
  • Narrow churn from a sweeping change means the affected paths are probably untested.

Set a rough expectation for the size of the diff before you run the autoupdater, and treat a large mismatch in either direction as a finding.

Never make the diff smaller by weakening the test

Editing test input (the Carbon source, not the CHECK lines) to make a diff look better is a behavior change in disguise. Deleting a test that now produces awkward output is worse. If a test's input has to change, that is a separate, explicitly-justified change, not diff cleanup.

What the autoupdater will not fix for you

  • NOAUTOUPDATE files. Their expectations are maintained by hand. They fail under bazelisk test rather than being silently rewritten.
  • Hand-written C++ expectations, for example golden output asserted in a _test.cpp. When several assertions in one of these break together, often only the first failure is reported, so fixing it can reveal another. Re-run until clean rather than assuming one fix was the whole repair.
  • Golden files outside testdata/, and documentation that quotes compiler output.

Review loop

Run the autoupdater

Autoupdate everything, then read the diff a directory at a time. Passing no paths is the default and updates every file test in the toolchain:

./toolchain/autoupdate_testdata.py

Narrow the scope only while iterating on one subdirectory you know you are not done with, where each round would otherwise regenerate output you have already read:

./toolchain/autoupdate_testdata.py toolchain/check/testdata/SUBDIR/**/*

The globs are expanded by the shell; the script filters its arguments to .carbon files under a testdata/ directory.

[!TIP] If intermediate states crash on CARBON_CHECK failures, pass --non-fatal-checks so you can see the full set of downstream damage in one run instead of one crash at a time.

[!IMPORTANT] Return to the full scope before judging the diff. Whether churn is proportional to the change, and whether a change to one phase moved another phase's testdata, are only visible across everything.

Autoupdate to a fixed point

One pass is not always enough, because the autoupdater's output is part of its own input. // CHECK:STDERR: lines sit inline, immediately above the source line they describe, and the compiler reads them as comments in the file. Gaining or losing a diagnostic therefore moves every source line below it.

Within a single run, the compiler has already read the file as it was, so the two kinds of output end up in different states:

  • STDERR is correct after one pass. These lines locate themselves relatively, as [[@LINE+N]], and the autoupdater recomputes N as it places them.
  • STDOUT is stale after one pass. SemIR names like %x.loc18_46.3 embed an absolute line and column with no filename attached, and the autoupdater only remaps file.carbon:18-style references. Nothing rewrites the loc, so it still describes where the instruction was before the diagnostic lines moved it.

Running again compiles the shifted file and the names catch up. The diagnostic set does not change this time, so nothing shifts again and a third run is a no-op. Keep running the autoupdater until it stops changing files: one pass when the diagnostics held still, two when they didn't.

[!WARNING] The intermediate state is self-inconsistent, not just unfinished: its loc names describe a file layout that no longer exists. Keep reading the diff after every run — that rule does not change — but do not chase positional churn to a cause until the file has converged, and do not present the diff until then either.

The converging pass should be positional renumbering and nothing else. If it moves an instruction, a type, or a constant value, then something other than a loc name is sensitive to where lines fall in the file. Find out what before accepting it.

The file tests do catch a file left unconverged, since each test re-runs the autoupdate in memory and fails with Autoupdate would make changes to the file content when the result differs. But that arrives at bazelisk test time, after you have already read a diff that was describing a file which had moved out from under it.

Inspect the diff

Inspect the diagnostics first, since that is the acceptance criterion:

# STDERR-only view, with jj.
jj --no-pager diff --git 'glob:toolchain/*/testdata/**' \
  | grep -E '^[-+].*CHECK:STDERR'

# The same, with git.
git diff -- 'toolchain/*/testdata/*' \
  | grep -E '^[-+].*CHECK:STDERR'

For a structured view separating test input, STDERR, and STDOUT changes, use the helper from the Summarize testdata changes skill:

jj --no-pager diff --git 'glob:toolchain/*/testdata/**' \
  | python3 .agents/skills/summarize_testdata_changes/scripts/parse_diff.py

git diff -- 'toolchain/*/testdata/*' \
  | python3 .agents/skills/summarize_testdata_changes/scripts/parse_diff.py

The argument after the tool name is not interchangeable: glob:... is a jj fileset, -- ... is a git pathspec. --git and --no-pager are jj flags; git already emits this format and skips the pager when piped.

Run the tests

Then run the tests, which is what catches prefix mismatches and non-autoupdated expectations:

bazelisk test //toolchain/...

See the Bazel usage skill.

Checklist

Before presenting a testdata diff as finished:

  • The autoupdater was run until it made no further changes, so no loc name describes a stale line numbering.
  • The list of accepted STDERR changes was written before autoupdating, and every change either matches it or is reported as an exception.
  • Every STDOUT change is either an instance of a named mechanical pattern or has its own explanation.
  • Instructions that appeared or disappeared are justified by what the changed function owes its caller, not by the instruction count.
  • Files whose prefix no longer matches their behavior have been renamed.
  • No test input was changed, and no test was deleted, to make the diff smaller.
  • The size of the diff is proportional to the size of the change.

评价

还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。

评论

无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。

还没有评论。来写第一条吧。

提交后会立即公开。请勿填写邮箱、电话等个人信息。URL 最多 2 个。

0 / 1000 字

此表单受 reCAPTCHA 保护,适用 Google 的隐私权政策和服务条款。

同一仓库的技能

本技能介绍如何使用命令行`gh`只读查看GitHub issue正文和评论,支持通过编号或URL定位,也可指定其他仓库,并说明如何提取大量评论。

  • 查看issue正文和评论
  • 通过URL读取issue
  • 查看其他仓库的issue
carbon-language/carbon-lang3.4万2026年10月26日 更新

Agent tools

免费有简介

本技能为在 Carbon 代码库中工作的 AI 助手规定文件查看、搜索和编辑工具,并说明临时文件的存放与清理规则,以及何时可以编写和运行自定义程序。

  • 按规定工具搜索Carbon文件
  • 为文件编辑选择专用工具
  • 确认临时文件的存放与清理规则
carbon-language/carbon-lang3.4万2026年10月26日 更新

Bazel usage

免费有简介

了解如何在 Carbon 项目中通过 Bazelisk 构建、测试和运行程序,包括指定目标、启用 ASan,以及系统依赖变更后重建缓存。

  • 构建 Carbon 代码
  • 运行与修改相关的测试
  • 启动 Bazel 构建的程序
carbon-language/carbon-lang3.4万2026年10月26日 更新

Builtin functions

免费有简介

本技能介绍如何为Carbon编译器添加内置函数,包括类型注册、签名验证、常量求值、运行时LLVM IR生成、Prelude绑定,以及使用最小Prelude编写针对性测试。

  • 注册内置函数
  • 实现常量求值
  • 添加LLVM IR生成
carbon-language/carbon-lang3.4万2026年10月26日 更新

Code style

免费有简介

了解 Carbon 工具链对 Bazel、C++、Carbon、Markdown 和 Python 文件的格式规范,并查看注释、文档、命名、设计及提交说明的写作要求。

  • 整理 Carbon 代码格式
  • 检查注释和文档
  • 确认名称是否符合实际含义
carbon-language/carbon-lang3.4万2026年10月26日 更新

Diagnostics

免费有简介

本技能介绍如何在Carbon工具链中添加或修改错误和警告,包括注册诊断类型、用带类型的参数构造消息、为源码位置添加标签和上下文,以及检查措辞规范和测试覆盖。

  • 添加诊断消息
  • 为源码位置添加标签
  • 统一诊断措辞
carbon-language/carbon-lang3.4万2026年10月26日 更新

查看 carbon-language 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题