superpmi unit test dependencies build issue

[BruceForstall]

The superpmi unit test, src/tests/JIT/superpmi, has a project reference to two other projects (currently):

Performance\CodeQuality\Bytemark\Bytemark.csproj
Methodical\fp\exgen\10w5d_cs_do.csproj

These get built and copied into the superpmi unit test directory. The superpmi unit test then invokes them while doing a superpmi collection.

As part of the new test execution system, 10w5d_cs_do was converted to not build as standalone, and so it no longer has a .cmd/.sh wrapper script. As a result, the superpmi unit test driver can't execute it.

We need a way to build 10w5d_cs_do (and/or other tests) for use with the superpmi unit test, such that they are built with BuildAsStandalone=true, or some other mechanism.

This change didn't cause a failure in the superpmi unit test itself due to insufficient error checking, fixed by #76411.

Tagging subscribers to this area: @hoyosjs
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Issue Details

---

The superpmi unit test, src/tests/JIT/superpmi, has a project reference to two other projects (currently):

Performance\CodeQuality\Bytemark\Bytemark.csproj
Methodical\fp\exgen\10w5d_cs_do.csproj

These get built and copied into the superpmi unit test directory. The superpmi unit test then invokes them while doing a superpmi collection.

As part of the new test execution system, 10w5d_cs_do was converted to not build as standalone, and so it no longer has a .cmd/.sh wrapper script. As a result, the superpmi unit test driver can't execute it.

We need a way to build 10w5d_cs_do (and/or other tests) for use with the superpmi unit test, such that they are built with BuildAsStandalone=true, or some other mechanism.

This change didn't cause a failure in the superpmi unit test itself due to insufficient error checking, fixed by #76411.

Author:	BruceForstall
Assignees:	BruceForstall
Labels:	area-Infrastructure-coreclr
Milestone:	8.0.0

[BruceForstall]

@BrianBohe @markples fyi, this will be an issue when converting more of the test tree to the new merged model.

[markples]

For now, I'm pretty sure that you can set <RequiresProcessIsolation>true</RequiresProcessIsolation> on it. I'm not sure if setting BuildAsStandalone (which would be a better self-documenting name to use) is good enough. Either way, pulling a few tests out of the merged groups will be fine. If we need a substantial fraction of the tests changed this way, then we'll need something more clever.