GitHub workflow with sanitizers

[aitap]

There are multiple ways to write the workflow in order to detect the issues like #6733.

One is to be quite close to the reference R-hub workflow description, which is in the HEAD of the current pull request. Here's how it fails on a recent master.

The other is to write a more custom workflow, still reusing the container maintained by Gábor Csárdi and the infrastructure providing binary packages linked with libc++ for the clang+sanitizers check. It's in the parent of the current pull request or the GHA-sanitizers branch. Here's what the failure looks like.

(The supported option is to use rhub::rhub_setup().)

Comments from people experienced with GHA are very welcome; this is the third time I'm doing any CI and the first time I'm writing a non-throwaway GitHub workflow.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 98.62%. Comparing base (3a7ec2d) to head (faeaab1).
Report is 8 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #6746   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   98.62%   98.62%           
=======================================
  Files          79       79           
  Lines       14645    14650    +5     
=======================================
+ Hits        14444    14449    +5     
  Misses        201      201           

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

[MichaelChirico]

Did you have a look at the clang-ubsan .devcontainer we have? I have used that in the past. I am not sure about performance in GHA.

https://github.com/Rdatatable/data.table/blob/7445df7473869a73103717a3f34d4e233d1c012b/.devcontainer/r-devel-clang-ubsan/Dockerfile

I'm not sure why the most recent run was cancelled, I'll close & re-open to re-trigger:

https://github.com/Rdatatable/data.table/actions/runs/12886173136

At a higher level, if performance is bad (say >=20% slower than any current PR-level action), I would recommend only running such an action on master.

To date, master-only checks have been done in GLCI -- @ben-schwen / @jangorecki do you know if we've ever had a UBSan (or MSan etc) action set up on GitLab?

[aitap]

Thank you for pointing me towards the devcontainer! Unlike rocker/r-devel-ubsan, rocker/r-devel-san-clang does have AddressSanitizer enabled, and we can try to additionally enable LeakSanitizer like here.

I don't think it we'll get it significantly faster than 4 minutes (or anywhere close to 40 seconds), especially if optional dependencies are introduced, so let's leave it on master.