Clarify LogEmission invariants in spec - #49291
Conversation
|
Warning This pull request is not mergeable via GitHub because a downstack PR is open. Once all requirements are satisfied, merge this PR as a stack on Graphite.
This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking. |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 4caa001152
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| @@ -342,7 +349,7 @@ rule EvictAndRegisterPattern { | |||
| match_count: 1, | |||
| sampled_count: 0 | |||
| ) | |||
| ensures: LogEmitted(message, sampled_count: 0) | |||
| ensures: LogEmitted(message) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
EvictAndRegisterPattern now uses LogEmitted(message) while the new LogEmission.TagPresence invariant is defined in terms of sampled_count. Dropping the argument here weakens the spec for the eviction path: the rule no longer explicitly constrains the emission to sampled_count: 0, so an implementation/model that emits a sampled-count tag after eviction could still satisfy this rule. Given this spec is being used to drive external property validation, this creates a real coverage gap for tag semantics in full-table scenarios.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
github-actions
Bot
added
the
short review
Files inventory check summaryFile checks results against ancestor 8d2a9c6a: Results for datadog-agent_7.80.0~devel.git.348.fd29b1f.pipeline.110503976-1_amd64.deb:No change detected |
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: 8d2a9c6 ❌ Experiments with retried target crashesThis is a critical error. One or more replicates failed with a non-zero exit code. These replicates may have been retried. See Replicate Execution Details for more information.
Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ➖ | docker_containers_cpu | % cpu utilization | -3.56 | [-6.44, -0.67] | 1 | Logs |
Fine details of change detection per experiment
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | +0.62 | [+0.45, +0.79] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | ddot_metrics_sum_cumulative | memory utilization | +0.49 | [+0.34, +0.65] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | docker_containers_memory | memory utilization | +0.40 | [+0.30, +0.50] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | +0.18 | [+0.14, +0.22] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | ddot_metrics | memory utilization | +0.15 | [-0.04, +0.35] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | ddot_metrics_sum_delta | memory utilization | +0.06 | [-0.12, +0.24] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.04 | [-0.36, +0.45] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.03 | [-0.39, +0.46] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | otlp_ingest_metrics | memory utilization | +0.02 | [-0.13, +0.17] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_v3 | ingress throughput | +0.01 | [-0.19, +0.21] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_20mb_12k_contexts_20_senders | memory utilization | +0.01 | [-0.04, +0.06] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.12, +0.13] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.21, +0.22] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.10, +0.09] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.04 | [-0.54, +0.47] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | ddot_metrics_sum_cumulativetodelta_exporter | memory utilization | -0.04 | [-0.27, +0.20] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | -0.28 | [-0.33, -0.23] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | -0.36 | [-0.42, -0.31] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | otlp_ingest_logs | memory utilization | -0.40 | [-0.50, -0.30] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | ddot_logs | memory utilization | -0.55 | [-0.61, -0.48] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | -1.87 | [-2.84, -0.91] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | memory utilization | -1.98 | [-2.23, -1.73] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | docker_containers_cpu | % cpu utilization | -3.56 | [-6.44, -0.67] | 1 | Logs |
Bounds Checks: ✅ Passed
| perf | experiment | bounds_check_name | replicates_passed | observed_value | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ✅ | docker_containers_cpu | simple_check_run | 10/10 | 582 ≥ 26 | |
| ✅ | docker_containers_memory | memory_usage | 10/10 | 243.49MiB ≤ 370MiB | |
| ✅ | docker_containers_memory | simple_check_run | 10/10 | 699 ≥ 26 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | 0.16GiB ≤ 1.20GiB | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | missed_bytes | 10/10 | 0B = 0B | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | 0.21GiB ≤ 1.20GiB | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | missed_bytes | 10/10 | 0B = 0B | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | 0.17GiB ≤ 1.20GiB | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | missed_bytes | 10/10 | 0B = 0B | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | 0.18GiB ≤ 1.20GiB | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | missed_bytes | 10/10 | 0B = 0B | |
| ✅ | quality_gate_idle | intake_connections | 10/10 | 3 ≤ 4 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_idle | memory_usage | 10/10 | 141.66MiB ≤ 147MiB | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | intake_connections | 10/10 | 3 ≤ 4 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory_usage | 10/10 | 468.58MiB ≤ 495MiB | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_logs | intake_connections | 10/10 | 4 ≤ 6 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_logs | memory_usage | 10/10 | 175.81MiB ≤ 195MiB | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_logs | missed_bytes | 10/10 | 0B = 0B | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | cpu_usage | 10/10 | 351.47 ≤ 2000 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | intake_connections | 10/10 | 3 ≤ 6 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | memory_usage | 10/10 | 364.19MiB ≤ 430MiB | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | missed_bytes | 10/10 | 0B = 0B | bounds checks dashboard |
Explanation
Confidence level: 90.00%
Effect size tolerance: |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%
Performance changes are noted in the perf column of each table:
- ✅ = significantly better comparison variant performance
- ❌ = significantly worse comparison variant performance
- ➖ = no significant change in performance
A regression test is an A/B test of target performance in a repeatable rig, where "performance" is measured as "comparison variant minus baseline variant" for an optimization goal (e.g., ingress throughput). Due to intrinsic variability in measuring that goal, we can only estimate its mean value for each experiment; we report uncertainty in that value as a 90.00% confidence interval denoted "Δ mean % CI".
For each experiment, we decide whether a change in performance is a "regression" -- a change worth investigating further -- if all of the following criteria are true:
-
Its estimated |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%, indicating the change is big enough to merit a closer look.
-
Its 90.00% confidence interval "Δ mean % CI" does not contain zero, indicating that if our statistical model is accurate, there is at least a 90.00% chance there is a difference in performance between baseline and comparison variants.
-
Its configuration does not mark it "erratic".
Replicate Execution Details
We run multiple replicates for each experiment/variant. However, we allow replicates to be automatically retried if there are any failures, up to 8 times, at which point the replicate is marked dead and we are unable to run analysis for the entire experiment. We call each of these attempts at running replicates a replicate execution. This section lists all replicate executions that failed due to the target crashing or being oom killed.
Note: In the below tables we bucket failures by experiment, variant, and failure type. For each of these buckets we list out the replicate indexes that failed with an annotation signifying how many times said replicate failed with the given failure mode. In the below example the baseline variant of the experiment named experiment_with_failures had two replicates that failed by oom kills. Replicate 0, which failed 8 executions, and replicate 1 which failed 6 executions, all with the same failure mode.
| Experiment | Variant | Replicates | Failure | Logs | Debug Dashboard |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| experiment_with_failures | baseline | 0 (x8) 1 (x6) | Oom killed | Debug Dashboard |
The debug dashboard links will take you to a debugging dashboard specifically designed to investigate replicate execution failures.
❌ Retried Normal Replicate Execution Failures (non-profiling)
| Experiment | Variant | Replicates | Failure | Debug Dashboard |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| quality_gate_idle_all_features | comparison | 4 | Oom killed | Debug Dashboard |
CI Pass/Fail Decision
✅ Passed. All Quality Gates passed.
- quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check missed_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check cpu_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check missed_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
4caa001 to
e4faeda
Compare
2a90d3b to
ddefd7f
Compare
e4faeda to
48626f4
Compare
ddefd7f to
66210d9
Compare
7ecbb44 to
04095fe
Compare
66210d9 to
0837b5d
Compare
This commit clarifies how tag prescense works. Previously this was implicit as guidance and implied in test behavior but not explicitly required by either the spec or test coverage.
04095fe to
fd29b1f
Compare
0837b5d to
6f9792f
Compare
|
🎯 Code Coverage (details) 🔗 Commit SHA: fd29b1f | Docs | Datadog PR Page | Give us feedback! |
Static quality checks✅ Please find below the results from static quality gates Successful checksInfo
29 successful checks with minimal change (< 2 KiB)
On-wire sizes (compressed)
|
2 participants
What does this PR do?
This commit clarifies how tag presence works. Previously this was
implicit as guidance and implied in test behavior but not explicitly
required by either the spec or test coverage
Motivation
SMP forward deploy is looking to create an externally validated property test
for adaptive sampling. Scoping the problem to validation of the integration of
individually fit-for-purpose components is a tidier problem than otherwise.