Add immediate size validation cases for pipeline creation #4573

shaoboyan091 · 2026-01-21T02:31:38Z

Add cases to validate immediate size checks during both compute and render pipeline creation.

Issue: #

Requirements for PR author:

All missing test coverage is tracked with "TODO" or .unimplemented().
New helpers are /** documented */ and new helper files are found in helper_index.txt.
Test behaves as expected in a WebGPU implementation. (If not passing, explain above.)
Test have be tested with compatibility mode validation enabled and behave as expected. (If not passing, explain above.)

Requirements for reviewer sign-off:

Tests are properly located.
Test descriptions are accurate and complete.
Tests provide complete coverage (including validation control cases). Missing coverage MUST be covered by TODOs.
Tests avoid over-parameterization (see case count report).

When landing this PR, be sure to make any necessary issue status updates.

github-actions · 2026-01-21T02:32:18Z

Results for build job (at 264b3a4):

+webgpu:api,validation,compute_pipeline:pipeline_creation_immediate_size_mismatch:* - 12 cases, 12 subcases (~1/case)
-webgpu:api,validation,render_pipeline,misc:external_texture:* - 1 cases, 1 subcases (~1/case)
+webgpu:api,validation,render_pipeline,misc:external_texture:* - 2 cases, 2 subcases (~1/case)
+webgpu:api,validation,render_pipeline,misc:pipeline_creation_immediate_size_mismatch:* - 18 cases, 18 subcases (~1/case)
-TOTAL: 285993 cases, 2344970 subcases
+TOTAL: 286024 cases, 2345001 subcases

Copilot

Pull request overview

This PR adds validation test cases for immediate data size checks during pipeline creation. The tests verify that pipeline creation fails when shaders use immediate data larger than the immediateSize specified in the pipeline layout or larger than maxImmediateSize when using automatic layout.

Changes:

Added helper function supportsImmediateData to check browser support for immediate data
Added pipeline_creation_immediate_size_mismatch test for compute pipelines
Added pipeline_creation_immediate_size_mismatch test for render pipelines

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 3 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated 6 comments.

File	Description
src/common/util/util.ts	Added `supportsImmediateData` helper function to detect immediate data feature support
src/webgpu/api/validation/compute_pipeline.spec.ts	Added test to validate immediate size checks during compute pipeline creation
src/webgpu/api/validation/render_pipeline/misc.spec.ts	Added test to validate immediate size checks during render pipeline creation

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

src/webgpu/api/validation/render_pipeline/misc.spec.ts

src/webgpu/api/validation/compute_pipeline.spec.ts

src/webgpu/api/validation/render_pipeline/misc.spec.ts

src/webgpu/api/validation/compute_pipeline.spec.ts

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated 4 comments.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

src/webgpu/api/validation/render_pipeline/misc.spec.ts

src/webgpu/api/validation/compute_pipeline.spec.ts

Add cases to validate immediate size checks during both compute and render pipeline creation.

kainino0x · 2026-02-11T06:58:51Z

@shaoboyan091 sorry I've been slow at picking up these re-reviews. To make it a bit easier could you please "resolve" any copilot review comments before sending for review? (either by addressing them or by ignoring them)

Having them open makes it harder to review the PR, but I've also noticed that it generates some useful suggestions so I don't want to necessarily ignore them either.

shaoboyan091 · 2026-02-11T08:52:15Z

@kainino0x Sure, will do. Thanks!

kainino0x

One major comment, and a few nits

kainino0x · 2026-02-12T04:54:50Z

src/webgpu/api/validation/compute_pipeline.spec.ts

+    assert(t.device.limits.maxImmediateSize !== undefined);
+    const maxImmediateSize = t.device.limits.maxImmediateSize;


nit:

Suggested change

assert(t.device.limits.maxImmediateSize !== undefined);

const maxImmediateSize = t.device.limits.maxImmediateSize;

const maxImmediateSize = t.device.limits.maxImmediateSize;

assert(maxImmediateSize !== undefined);

kainino0x · 2026-02-12T05:03:27Z

src/webgpu/api/validation/compute_pipeline.spec.ts

+  .params(u => {
+    const kNumericCases = [
+      { shaderSize: 16, layoutSize: 16 }, // Equal
+      { shaderSize: 12, layoutSize: 16 }, // Shader smaller
+      { shaderSize: 20, layoutSize: 16 }, // Shader larger (small diff)
+      { shaderSize: 32, layoutSize: 16 }, // Shader larger
+    ] as const;
+    const kMaxLimitsCases = [
+      { shaderSize: 'max', layoutSize: 'auto' }, // Shader equal to limit (auto layout)
+      { shaderSize: 'exceedLimits', layoutSize: 'auto' }, // Shader larger than limit (auto layout)
+    ] as const;
+    return u
+      .combine('isAsync', [true, false])
+      .combineWithParams([...kNumericCases, ...kMaxLimitsCases] as const);
+  })


nit: This pattern is interesting, but I think I find it slightly harder to read than the more typical pattern that makes it clearer that these two arrays will be part of the same combineWithParams call:

.params(u => u .combine('isAsync', [true, false]) .combineWithParams([ // Numeric cases /* ... */ // Max-limit cases /* ... */ ])

Though the header comments aren't really necessary because it's already obvious what it means.

Suggested change

.params(u => {

const kNumericCases = [

{ shaderSize: 16, layoutSize: 16 }, // Equal

{ shaderSize: 12, layoutSize: 16 }, // Shader smaller

{ shaderSize: 20, layoutSize: 16 }, // Shader larger (small diff)

{ shaderSize: 32, layoutSize: 16 }, // Shader larger

] as const;

const kMaxLimitsCases = [

{ shaderSize: 'max', layoutSize: 'auto' }, // Shader equal to limit (auto layout)

{ shaderSize: 'exceedLimits', layoutSize: 'auto' }, // Shader larger than limit (auto layout)

] as const;

return u

.combine('isAsync', [true, false])

.combineWithParams([...kNumericCases, ...kMaxLimitsCases] as const);

})

.params(u => u

.combine('isAsync', [true, false])

.combineWithParams([

{ shaderSize: 16, layoutSize: 16 }, // Equal

{ shaderSize: 12, layoutSize: 16 }, // Shader smaller

{ shaderSize: 20, layoutSize: 16 }, // Shader larger (small diff)

{ shaderSize: 32, layoutSize: 16 }, // Shader larger

{ shaderSize: 'max', layoutSize: 'auto' }, // Shader equal to limit (auto layout)

{ shaderSize: 'exceedLimits', layoutSize: 'auto' }, // Shader larger than limit (auto layout)

] as const)

)

kainino0x · 2026-02-12T05:09:38Z

src/webgpu/api/validation/compute_pipeline.spec.ts

+    } else if (shaderSize === 'exceedLimits') {
+      actualShaderSize = validSize + 4;
+    } else {
+      actualShaderSize = shaderSize as number;


nit: I think the type narrowing makes this cast unnecessary

Suggested change

actualShaderSize = shaderSize as number;

actualShaderSize = shaderSize;

kainino0x · 2026-02-12T05:11:14Z

src/webgpu/api/validation/compute_pipeline.spec.ts

+    }
+
+    const numFields = actualShaderSize / 4;
+    const fields = Array.from({ length: numFields }, (_, i) => `m${i}: u32`).join(', ');


nit: use range from src/common/util/util.ts

kainino0x · 2026-02-12T05:18:19Z

src/webgpu/api/validation/render_pipeline/misc.spec.ts

+      { vertexSize: 'exceedLimits', fragmentSize: 0, layoutSize: 'auto' }, // Vertex > Limit
+      { vertexSize: 0, fragmentSize: 'exceedLimits', layoutSize: 'auto' }, // Fragment > Limit
+    ] as const;
+    return u


same suggestion here

kainino0x · 2026-02-12T05:19:37Z

src/webgpu/api/validation/render_pipeline/misc.spec.ts

+    assert(t.device.limits.maxImmediateSize !== undefined);
+    const maxImmediateSize = t.device.limits.maxImmediateSize;


kainino0x · 2026-02-12T05:19:53Z

src/webgpu/api/validation/render_pipeline/misc.spec.ts

+        return `@fragment fn main_fragment() -> @location(0) vec4<f32> { return vec4<f32>(0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 1.0); }`;
+      }
+      const numFields = size / 4;
+      const fields = Array.from({ length: numFields }, (_, i) => `m${i}: u32`).join(', ');


kainino0x · 2026-02-12T05:24:32Z

src/webgpu/api/validation/render_pipeline/misc.spec.ts

    vtu.doCreateRenderPipelineTest(t, isAsync, success, descriptor);
  });
+
+g.test('pipeline_creation_immediate_size_mismatch')


The render and compute tests are extremely similar, I would prefer to put them together in the same file (and probably share some code), e.g. api/validation/pipeline/immediates.spec.ts

Not sure how easy this is to do - consider it, but it's not that important.

kainino0x · 2026-02-12T05:28:59Z

src/webgpu/api/validation/compute_pipeline.spec.ts

+    // When the shader exceeds the device's maxImmediateSize, the error occurs
+    // at shader module creation time, not pipeline creation time.


I don't think this should be validated here, if we can avoid it. createShaderModule doesn't know whether a given entry point is going to be used or not. I am pretty sure WebGPU doesn't normally validate features or limits in createShaderModule.

Also, if we do end up allowing arrays, then overrides might be able to change the size of the immediate data, in which case we would have to duplicate the validation in pipeline creation.

kainino0x · 2026-02-12T05:31:24Z

src/webgpu/api/validation/render_pipeline/misc.spec.ts

+    // When the shader exceeds the device's maxImmediateSize, the error occurs
+    // at shader module creation time, not pipeline creation time.


shaoboyan091 requested a review from Copilot January 21, 2026 02:31

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of shaoboyan091 January 21, 2026 02:32 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Jan 21, 2026

View reviewed changes

shaoboyan091 force-pushed the immediate-pipeline-creation branch from cf15532 to 2127eae Compare January 21, 2026 03:19

shaoboyan091 force-pushed the immediate-pipeline-creation branch 2 times, most recently from ab59c0d to 7edddc0 Compare February 9, 2026 07:03

shaoboyan091 requested a review from Copilot February 9, 2026 07:05

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of shaoboyan091 February 9, 2026 07:05 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Feb 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

Add immediate size validation cases for pipeline creation

438463e

Add cases to validate immediate size checks during both compute and render pipeline creation.

shaoboyan091 force-pushed the immediate-pipeline-creation branch from 7edddc0 to 438463e Compare February 9, 2026 08:37

shaoboyan091 requested review from Kangz and kainino0x February 10, 2026 03:19

Adding assert to ensure test parameter valid

264b3a4

kainino0x reviewed Feb 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

		assert(t.device.limits.maxImmediateSize !== undefined);
		const maxImmediateSize = t.device.limits.maxImmediateSize;

	actualShaderSize = shaderSize as number;
	actualShaderSize = shaderSize;

		// When the shader exceeds the device's maxImmediateSize, the error occurs
		// at shader module creation time, not pipeline creation time.

Add immediate size validation cases for pipeline creation #4573

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Add immediate size validation cases for pipeline creation #4573

Conversation

shaoboyan091 commented Jan 21, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Jan 21, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

kainino0x commented Feb 11, 2026

Uh oh!

shaoboyan091 commented Feb 11, 2026

Uh oh!

kainino0x left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

shaoboyan091 commented Jan 21, 2026 •

edited

Loading

github-actions bot commented Jan 21, 2026 •

edited

Loading