[mb] Copy MB from Chromium repo

tools/mb/docs/design_spec.md

+# The MB (Meta-Build wrapper) design spec
+
+[TOC]
+
+## Intro
+
+MB is intended to address two major aspects of the GYP -> GN transition
+for Chromium:
+
+1. "bot toggling" - make it so that we can easily flip a given bot
+   back and forth between GN and GYP.
+
+2. "bot configuration" - provide a single source of truth for all of
+   the different configurations (os/arch/`gyp_define` combinations) of
+   Chromium that are supported.
+
+MB must handle at least the `gen` and `analyze` steps on the bots, i.e.,
+we need to wrap both the `gyp_chromium` invocation to generate the
+Ninja files, and the `analyze` step that takes a list of modified files
+and a list of targets to build and returns which targets are affected by
+the files.
+
+For more information on how to actually use MB, see
+[the user guide](user_guide.md).
+
+## Design
+
+MB is intended to be as simple as possible, and to defer as much work as
+possible to GN or GYP. It should live as a very simple Python wrapper
+that offers little in the way of surprises.
+
+### Command line
+
+It is structured as a single binary that supports a list of subcommands:
+
+* `mb gen -c linux_rel_bot //out/Release`
+* `mb analyze -m tryserver.chromium.linux -b linux_rel /tmp/input.json /tmp/output.json`
+
+### Configurations
+
+`mb` will first look for a bot config file in a set of different locations
+(initially just in //ios/build/bots). Bot config files are JSON files that
+contain keys for 'GYP_DEFINES' (a list of strings that will be joined together
+with spaces and passed to GYP, or a dict that will be similarly converted),
+'gn_args' (a list of strings that will be joined together), and an
+'mb_type' field that says whether to use GN or GYP. Bot config files
+require the full list of settings to be given explicitly.
+
+If no matching bot config file is found, `mb` looks in the
+`//tools/mb/mb_config.pyl` config file to determine whether to use GYP or GN
+for a particular build directory, and what set of flags (`GYP_DEFINES` or `gn
+args`) to use.
+
+A config can either be specified directly (useful for testing) or by specifying
+the master name and builder name (useful on the bots so that they do not need
+to specify a config directly and can be hidden from the details).
+
+See the [user guide](user_guide.md#mb_config.pyl) for details.
+
+### Handling the analyze step
+
+The interface to `mb analyze` is described in the
+[user\_guide](user_guide.md#mb_analyze).
+
+The way analyze works can be subtle and complicated (see below).
+
+Since the interface basically mirrors the way the "analyze" step on the bots
+invokes `gyp_chromium` today, when the config is found to be a gyp config,
+the arguments are passed straight through.
+
+It implements the equivalent functionality in GN by calling `gn refs
+[list of files] --type=executable --all --as=output` and filtering the
+output to match the list of targets.
+
+## Analyze
+
+The goal of the `analyze` step is to speed up the cycle time of the try servers
+by only building and running the tests affected by the files in a patch, rather
+than everything that might be out of date. Doing this ends up being tricky.
+
+We start with the following requirements and observations:
+
+* In an ideal (un-resource-constrained) world, we would build and test
+  everything that a patch affected on every patch. This does not
+  necessarily mean that we would build 'all' on every patch (see below).
+
+* In the real world, however, we do not have an infinite number of machines,
+  and try jobs are not infinitely fast, so we need to balance the desire
+  to get maximum test coverage against the desire to have reasonable cycle
+  times, given the number of machines we have.
+
+* Also, since we run most try jobs against tip-of-tree Chromium, by
+  the time one job completes on the bot, new patches have probably landed,
+  rendering the build out of date.
+
+* This means that the next try job may have to do a build that is out of
+  date due to a combination of files affected by a given patch, and files
+  affected for unrelated reasons. We want to rebuild and test only the
+  targets affected by the patch, so that we don't blame or punish the
+  patch author for unrelated changes.
+
+So:
+
+1. We need a way to indicate which changed files we care about and which
+   we don't (the affected files of a patch).
+
+2. We need to know which tests we might potentially want to run, and how
+   those are mapped onto build targets. For some kinds of tests (like
+   GTest-based tests), the mapping is 1:1 - if you want to run base_unittests,
+   you need to build base_unittests. For others (like the telemetry and
+   layout tests), you might need to build several executables in order to
+   run the tests, and that mapping might best be captured by a *meta*
+   target (a GN group or a GYP 'none' target like `webkit_tests`) that
+   depends on the right list of files. Because the GN and GYP files know
+   nothing about test steps, we have to have some way of mapping back
+   and forth between test steps and build targets. That mapping
+   is *not* currently available to MB (or GN or GYP), and so we have to 
+   enough information to make it possible for the caller to do the mapping.
+
+3. We might also want to know when test targets are affected by data files
+   that aren't compiled (python scripts, or the layout tests themselves).
+   There's no good way to do this in GYP, but GN supports this.
+
+4. We also want to ensure that particular targets still compile even if they
+   are not actually tested; consider testing the installers themselves, or
+   targets that don't yet have good test coverage. We might want to use meta
+   targets for this purpose as well.
+
+5. However, for some meta targets, we don't necessarily want to rebuild the
+   meta target itself, perhaps just the dependencies of the meta target that
+   are affected by the patch. For example, if you have a meta target like
+   `blink_tests` that might depend on ten different test binaries. If a patch
+   only affects one of them (say `wtf_unittests`), you don't want to
+   build `blink_tests`, because that might actually also build the other nine
+   targets.  In other words, some meta targets are *prunable*.
+
+6. As noted above, in the ideal case we actually have enough resources and
+   things are fast enough that we can afford to build everything affected by a
+   patch, but listing every possible target explicitly would be painful. The
+   GYP and GN Ninja generators provide an 'all' target that captures (nearly,
+   see [crbug.com/503241](crbug.com/503241)) everything, but unfortunately
+   neither GN nor GYP actually represents 'all' as a meta target in the build
+   graph, so we will need to write code to handle that specially.
+
+7. In some cases, we will not be able to correctly analyze the build graph to
+   determine the impact of a patch, and need to bail out (e.g,. if you change a
+   build file itself, it may not be easy to tell how that affects the graph).
+   In that case we should simply build and run everything.
+
+The interaction between 2) and 5) means that we need to treat meta targets
+two different ways, and so we need to know which targets should be
+pruned in the sense of 5) and which targets should be returned unchanged
+so that we can map them back to the appropriate tests.
+
+So, we need three things as input:
+
+* `files`: the list of files in the patch
+* `test_targets`: the list of ninja targets which, if affected by a patch,
+  should be reported back so that we can map them back to the appropriate
+  tests to run. Any meta targets in this list should *not* be pruned.
+* `additional_compile_targets`: the list of ninja targets we wish to compile
+  *in addition to* the list in `test_targets`. Any meta targets
+  present in this list should be pruned (we don't need to return the
+  meta targets because they aren't mapped back to tests, and we don't want
+  to build them because we might build too much).
+
+We can then return two lists as output:
+
+* `compile_targets`, which is a list of pruned targets to be
+  passed to Ninja to build. It is acceptable to replace a list of
+  pruned targets by a meta target if it turns out that all of the
+  dependendencies of the target are affected by the patch (i.e.,
+  all ten binaries that blink_tests depends on), but doing so is
+  not required.
+* `test_targets`, which is a list of unpruned targets to be mapped
+  back to determine which tests to run.
+
+There may be substantial overlap between the two lists, but there is
+no guarantee that one is a subset of the other and the two cannot be
+used interchangeably or merged together without losing information and
+causing the wrong thing to happen.
+
+The implementation is responsible for recognizing 'all' as a magic string
+and mapping it onto the list of all root nodes in the build graph.
+
+There may be files listed in the input that don't actually exist in the build
+graph: this could be either the result of an error (the file should be in the
+build graph, but isn't), or perfectly fine (the file doesn't affect the build
+graph at all). We can't tell these two apart, so we should ignore missing
+files.
+
+There may be targets listed in the input that don't exist in the build
+graph; unlike missing files, this can only indicate a configuration error,
+and so we should return which targets are missing so the caller can
+treat this as an error, if so desired.
+
+Any of the three inputs may be an empty list:
+
+* It normally doesn't make sense to call analyze at all if no files
+  were modified, but in rare cases we can hit a race where we try to
+  test a patch after it has already been committed, in which case
+  the list of modified files is empty. We should return 'no dependency'
+  in that case.
+
+* Passing an empty list for one or the other of test_targets and
+  additional_compile_targets is perfectly sensible: in the former case,
+  it can indicate that you don't want to run any tests, and in the latter,
+  it can indicate that you don't want to do build anything else in
+  addition to the test targets.
+
+* It doesn't make sense to call analyze if you don't want to compile
+  anything at all, so passing [] for both test_targets and 
+  additional_compile_targets should probably return an error.
+
+In the output case, an empty list indicates that there was nothing to
+build, or that there were no affected test targets as appropriate.
+
+Note that passing no arguments to Ninja is equivalent to passing
+`all` to Ninja (at least given how GN and GYP work); however, we
+don't want to take advantage of this in most cases because we don't
+actually want to build every out of date target, only the targets
+potentially affected by the files. One could try to indicate
+to analyze that we wanted to use no arguments instead of an empty
+list, but using the existing fields for this seems fragile and/or
+confusing, and adding a new field for this seems unwarranted at this time.
+
+There is an "error" field in case something goes wrong (like the
+empty file list case, above, or an internal error in MB/GYP/GN). The
+analyze code should also return an error code to the shell if appropriate
+to indicate that the command failed.
+
+In the case where build files themselves are modified and analyze may
+not be able to determine a correct answer (point 7 above, where we return
+"Found dependency (all)"), we should also return the `test_targets` unmodified
+and return the union of `test_targets` and `additional_compile_targets` for
+`compile_targets`, to avoid confusion.
+
+### Examples
+
+Continuing the example given above, suppose we have the following build
+graph:
+
+* `blink_tests` is a meta target that depends on `webkit_unit_tests`,
+  `wtf_unittests`, and `webkit_tests` and represents all of the targets
+  needed to fully test Blink. Each of those is a separate test step.
+* `webkit_tests` is also a meta target; it depends on `content_shell`
+  and `image_diff`.
+* `base_unittests` is a separate test binary.
+* `wtf_unittests` depends on `Assertions.cpp` and `AssertionsTest.cpp`.
+* `webkit_unit_tests` depends on `WebNode.cpp` and `WebNodeTest.cpp`.
+* `content_shell` depends on `WebNode.cpp` and `Assertions.cpp`.
+* `base_unittests` depends on `logging.cc` and `logging_unittest.cc`.
+
+#### Example 1
+
+We wish to run 'wtf_unittests' and 'webkit_tests' on a bot, but not
+compile any additional targets.
+
+If a patch touches WebNode.cpp, then analyze gets as input:
+
+    {
+      "files": ["WebNode.cpp"],
+      "test_targets": ["wtf_unittests", "webkit_tests"],
+      "additional_compile_targets": []
+    }
+
+and should return as output:
+
+    {
+      "status": "Found dependency",
+      "compile_targets": ["webkit_unit_tests"],
+      "test_targets": ["webkit_tests"]
+    }
+
+Note how `webkit_tests` was pruned in compile_targets but not in test_targets.
+
+#### Example 2
+
+Using the same patch as Example 1, assume we wish to run only `wtf_unittests`,
+but additionally build everything needed to test Blink (`blink_tests`):
+
+We pass as input:
+
+    {
+      "files": ["WebNode.cpp"],
+      "test_targets": ["wtf_unittests"],
+      "additional_compile_targets": ["blink_tests"]
+    }
+
+And should get as output:
+
+    {
+      "status": "Found dependency",
+      "compile_targets": ["webkit_unit_tests"],
+      "test_targets": []
+    }
+
+Here `blink_tests` was pruned in the output compile_targets, and
+test_targets was empty, since blink_tests was not listed in the input
+test_targets.
+
+#### Example 3
+
+Build everything, but do not run any tests.
+
+Input:
+
+    {
+      "files": ["WebNode.cpp"],
+      "test_targets": [],
+      "additional_compile_targets": ["all"]
+    }
+
+Output:
+
+    {
+      "status": "Found dependency",
+      "compile_targets": ["webkit_unit_tests", "content_shell"],
+      "test_targets": []
+    }
+
+#### Example 4
+
+Same as Example 2, but a build file was modified instead of a source file.
+
+Input:
+
+    {
+      "files": ["BUILD.gn"],
+      "test_targets": ["wtf_unittests"],
+      "additional_compile_targets": ["blink_tests"]
+    }
+
+Output:
+
+    {
+      "status": "Found dependency (all)",
+      "compile_targets": ["webkit_unit_tests", "wtf_unittests"],
+      "test_targets": ["wtf_unittests"]
+    }
+
+test_targets was returned unchanged, compile_targets was pruned.
+
+## Random Requirements and Rationale
+
+This section is collection of semi-organized notes on why MB is the way
+it is ...
+
+### in-tree or out-of-tree
+
+The first issue is whether or not this should exist as a script in
+Chromium at all; an alternative would be to simply change the bot
+configurations to know whether to use GYP or GN, and which flags to
+pass.
+
+That would certainly work, but experience over the past two years
+suggests a few things:
+
+  * we should push as much logic as we can into the source repositories
+    so that they can be versioned and changed atomically with changes to
+    the product code; having to coordinate changes between src/ and
+    build/ is at best annoying and can lead to weird errors.
+  * the infra team would really like to move to providing
+    product-independent services (i.e., not have to do one thing for
+    Chromium, another for NaCl, a third for V8, etc.).
+  * we found that during the SVN->GIT migration the ability to flip bot
+    configurations between the two via changes to a file in chromium
+    was very useful.
+
+All of this suggests that the interface between bots and Chromium should
+be a simple one, hiding as much of the chromium logic as possible.
+
+### Why not have MB be smarter about de-duping flags?
+
+This just adds complexity to the MB implementation, and duplicates logic
+that GYP and GN already have to support anyway; in particular, it might
+require MB to know how to parse GYP and GN values. The belief is that
+if MB does *not* do this, it will lead to fewer surprises.
+
+It will not be hard to change this if need be.
+
+### Integration w/ gclient runhooks
+
+On the bots, we will disable `gyp_chromium` as part of runhooks (using
+`GYP_CHROMIUM_NO_ACTION=1`), so that mb shows up as a separate step.
+
+At the moment, we expect most developers to either continue to use
+`gyp_chromium` in runhooks or to disable at as above if they have no
+use for GYP at all. We may revisit how this works once we encourage more
+people to use GN full-time (i.e., we might take `gyp_chromium` out of
+runhooks altogether).
+
+### Config per flag set or config per (os/arch/flag set)?
+
+Currently, mb_config.pyl does not specify the host_os, target_os, host_cpu, or
+target_cpu values for every config that Chromium runs on, it only specifies
+them for when the values need to be explicitly set on the command line.
+
+Instead, we have one config per unique combination of flags only.
+
+In other words, rather than having `linux_rel_bot`, `win_rel_bot`, and
+`mac_rel_bot`, we just have `rel_bot`.
+
+This design allows us to determine easily all of the different sets
+of flags that we need to support, but *not* which flags are used on which
+host/target combinations.
+
+It may be that we should really track the latter. Doing so is just a
+config file change, however.
+
+### Non-goals
+
+* MB is not intended to replace direct invocation of GN or GYP for
+  complicated build scenarios (aka ChromeOS), where multiple flags need
+  to be set to user-defined paths for specific toolchains (e.g., where
+  ChromeOS needs to specify specific board types and compilers).
+
+* MB is not intended at this time to be something developers use frequently,
+  or to add a lot of features to. We hope to be able to get rid of it once
+  the GYP->GN migration is done, and so we should not add things for
+  developers that can't easily be added to GN itself.
+
+* MB is not intended to replace the
+  [CR tool](https://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/CRUserManual). Not
+  only is it only intended to replace the gyp\_chromium part of `'gclient
+  runhooks'`, it is not really meant as a developer-facing tool.