[avocado-utils] : add validation for perf binary in ensure_tool()

[Sumitupadhyay1]

Testcases that depend on tools like perf, which may be a part of distro packages or custom-installed in a specific location, fail in an ungraceful manner when the binary of those tools is missing or non-functional.

• This patch introduces a function ensure_tool() to check if the tool is present and the binary is valid.
• If not, the function proceeds to install the tool.
• In this way, failures due to the above-mentioned scenarios are handled gracefully.

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @Sumitupadhyay1, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request enhances the avocado utility by introducing a standardized mechanism to ensure external tools, like perf, are correctly set up and functional before tests execute. This change aims to improve the reliability and reproducibility of test environments by centralizing tool validation and providing clear error feedback, whether the tool is provided via a custom path or installed through system packages.

Highlights

• New ensure_tool() function: Introduced a new utility function ensure_tool() to validate the availability and functionality of a given tool, either from a custom binary path or by installing it via distro packages.
• Custom Path Validation: The ensure_tool() function now checks if a tool's binary exists at a specified custom_path and verifies its functionality by attempting to run it with --version.
• Distro Package Integration: If no custom path is provided, the function attempts to install the tool using distro_pkg_map and then validates its functionality post-installation.
• Robust Error Handling: Added specific RuntimeError exceptions for scenarios such as a missing custom binary path, a non-functional binary, or the absence of a package map when required.
• Version String Return: Upon successful validation, the function returns the tool's version string, ensuring that tests can confirm the correct tool is in use.

Changelog

• avocado/utils/software_manager/distro_packages.py
  • Added ensure_tool() function to validate tool availability and return its version string.
  • Implemented checks for custom binary paths, including existence and functionality.
  • Integrated distro package installation and post-installation functionality checks.
  • Introduced error handling for missing paths, non-functional binaries, and missing package maps.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

The pull request introduces a new ensure_tool function to validate the availability and functionality of a given tool, either from a custom path or by installing it via distro packages, which improves the reliability and reproducibility of tests. However, this new utility function is vulnerable to command injection due to the use of shell=True with unvalidated user input (tool_name and custom_path). It is recommended to remove shell=True to prevent the shell from interpreting metacharacters and consider using shlex.quote() for inputs that might contain spaces. The error handling for missing paths, non-functional binaries, and missing package maps is otherwise clear and appropriate.

[Sumitupadhyay1]

The failing docs checks are upstream issues, not caused by this PR. They match the problem already fixed in PR: #6273 and applying those changes locally makes the build pass.

[Sumitupadhyay1]

@richtja Could you please review this Pull Request.

[Sumitupadhyay1]

@richtja, Could you please review the pull request? Merging it would help with testing the avocado-misc-tests.

[Sumitupadhyay1]

@richtja Could you please review this Pull Request.

[richtja]

Hi @Sumitupadhyay1, thanks for your contribution, and sorry for late reply. I have few comments which you can look into.

[Sumitupadhyay1]

Hi @richtja, thanks for the review. I have moved the imports to the top of the file and added error handling for the package installation failure case. Could you please take another look on this pull request?

[richtja]

Hi @Sumitupadhyay1, thank you for the changes. It almost LGTM, we just need to make CI happy. The Packit failures IMO are not related to this, but the static check failures need fixes. You can use pre-commit to run static checks locally to fix it. Please look into that. Thank you.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 73.81%. Comparing base (fdf8aee) to head (ece60cd).
⚠️ Report is 16 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #6272      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   75.02%   73.81%   -1.21%     
==========================================
  Files         206      205       -1     
  Lines       22510    22585      +75     
==========================================
- Hits        16888    16671     -217     
- Misses       5622     5914     +292     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.