Improve the nofuzz system to allow specific exclusions #2832
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## fuzz-assignment #2832 +/- ##
================================================
Coverage 99.64% 99.64%
================================================
Files 126 126
Lines 7042 7043 +1
================================================
+ Hits 7017 7018 +1
Misses 25 25 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Continues the chain from #2818 to #2829 (the last of which this is currently based against).
I wasn't satisfied with the approach to just comment out & ignore large swaths of the test suite needed to implement
# nofuzzthrough now, especially after thecomment_injection_fuzzerturned out to require such large# nofuzzregions, but I was stuck on how to proceed with specific exclusions.I think the approach taken here is pretty satisfactory: as a preprocessing step, we convert the
# nofuzzmarkup into new code in the suite that signals activated/deactivated fuzzers for each execution ofexpect_lint().The approach could be improved -- it can be a bit of a pain to debug, e.g. when
expect_lint(file = .)was erroring due to encoding issues, the error causes the test to exit and thus fails to run theactivate_fuzzers()step, leading to cascading confusing errors it's hard to pin down. And there's no simple workaround here, as e.g. using awithr::defer()approach to ensure theactivate_fuzzers()step is run is not straightforward.But I think there's enough good progress here (and it turned up a few more true positive fixes!) that it is ready for review.