New WineTest report size crisis

[Rémi Bernon]

On 9/23/21 5:17 PM, Francois Gouget wrote:
> The ntoskrnl output is now very reasonable.
> Many thanks to Zebediah for taking care of this.
> 
> But the WineTest reports are, again, above the 1.5 MB size limit on
> Wine. Not by much, from 22 to 90kB, but that's enough to cause a lot of
> Wine results to disappear from test.winehq.org:
> 
> https://test.winehq.org/data/patterns.html
> (notice the underscores at the end of the linux_ lines)
> 
> 
> The limit could be raised (if Alexandre accepts the patch), but we also
> cannot let the tests output increase without control if we want to keep
> reasonable file sizes. If all tests outputted as much as the top 5 we
> would have 40 MB test reports which would have a serious impact on the
> test.winehq.org disk usage. It also means the 'full report' HTML pages
> would blow up to about 152 MB. That might prove hard on web browsers.
> 
> So maybe increasing the limit is necessary and maybe even overdue. But
> it's also the easy way out and the top 5 offenders (see list at bottom)
> are clearly generating too much output anyway. So I think we should make
> some effort to bring them to more reasonable sizes.
> 
> 
> Anyway, the main tests responsible for the size increase are:
> * user32:msg (+63kB)
> * dinput8:hid (+26kB)
> * and a smattering of d3d tests
> 
> Also this time there is no single patch to blame. Instead a range of
> patches added 105kB to the reports, pushing them over the edge:
> 
> Sep 08: d3dcompiler_46:hlsl_d3d11 (new, +1.7kB)
>          d3dx10_38:d3dx10 (new, +3kB)
>          user32:msg (+6kB)
> 
> Sep 09: dinput8:hid (new, +4kB)
>          user32:msg (+18kB)
> Sep 13: d3dx10_37:d3dx10 (new, +3kB)
> 
> Sep 15: dinput8:hid (+3kB)
> Sep 15: d3dx10_36:d3dx10 (new, +3kB)
> 
> Sep 16: dinput8:hid (+3kB)
> 
> Sep 17: dinput8:hid (+10kB)
>          user32:msg (+6kB)
> 
> Sep 20: dinput8:hid (+7kB)
>          d3dx10_35:d3dx10 (new, +3kB)
>          user32:msg (+15kB)
> 
> Sep 21: user32:msg (+19kB)
> 
> 
> Of course we still have the old offenders so that the top 5 tests (1.36%
> of the total) now use 17% (270kB) of the maximum report size!
> 
> So I created bugs to track this and I'm calling for help to get this
> under control:
> 
> * bug 51780 - user32:msg (97kB)
> * bug 51781 - d3d11:d3d11 (84kB)
> * bug 51782 - ws2_32:sock (29kB)
> * bug 51783 - ieframe:webbrowser (29kB)
> * bug 51785 - d3dx10_*:d3dx10 (29kB)
> * bug 51784 - dinput8:hid (26kB) (not in top 5 if aggregating d3dx10_*)
> 
> 
> Note: Yes, I'm using 1000 bytes kBs here: I have an easier time dividing
>        the 'wc -c' output by 1000 in my head than by 1024.
> 

I'm the one to blame for dinput8:hid blowing up, so of course I'm 
completely biased, but looking at it again it doesn't seem to be *that 
much* out of control.

Even with the tests I intend to fix, I think it will only reduce to 
maybe half its current output size.

There's a lot of redundant test driver installation todos, but mostly 
because of how the tests need to be run. Of course I could just remove 
these checks, but I don't like the idea very much...

So then my question is, is there any actual use for the full reports 
(even more for their HTML version)?

And then, I suppose these are all uncompressed sizes, so could we 
compress the reports if this is a matter of disk space? I'm sure they 
would compress pretty well.

Cheers,
-- 
Rémi Bernon <rbernon at codeweavers.com>