Use hermetic MSVC and msbuild to build cpython on Windows

[JSGette]

What does this PR do?

Previous implementation relied on the local installation of MSVC and msbuild to build cpython. A custom repository rule would verify version of the installed MSVC that worked perfectly fine inside of build images. Unfortunately, Windows Updates do bump MSVC as well, so at some point the build started to fail on the Windows host (not inside of the container) due to msbuild version mismatch. One of the potential solutions was to relax version check but that would inevitably introduce caching issues when we can't efficiently share cache across machines unable to ensure that everyone is using the same MSVC. Thus, this PR targets to introduce a fully hermetic MSVC and msbuild distribution that is fully managed by Bazel. We use toolchains_msvc as basis applying a patch on top of that to, first, stop filtering out msbuild and, second, expose additional headers and dlls that are required to make this whole enterprise work.

There is one more consumer for msbuild - libdatadog-interop.dll. This will be handled in a follow up PR.

[dd-octo-sts]

Files inventory check summary

File checks results against ancestor d263e531:

Results for datadog-agent_7.84.0~devel.git.125.59d659b.pipeline.130418778-1_amd64.deb:

No change detected

Results for datadog-iot-agent_7.84.0~devel.git.125.59d659b.pipeline.130418778-1_amd64.deb:

No change detected

[cit-pr-commenter-54b7da]

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Metrics dashboard
Target profiles
Run ID: 4df152f9-1165-4ca2-a5d2-47c37c6d29be

Baseline: 8b7574e
Comparison: ce48406
Diff

Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf	experiment	goal	Δ mean %	Δ mean % CI	trials	links
➖	quality_gate_metrics_logs	memory utilization	+1.03	[+0.78, +1.27]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖	quality_gate_security_no_fs_load	memory utilization	+0.29	[+0.14, +0.43]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖	quality_gate_idle	memory utilization	+0.20	[+0.08, +0.32]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖	quality_gate_security_idle	memory utilization	+0.14	[+0.04, +0.24]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖	quality_gate_security_mean_fs_load	memory utilization	+0.13	[+0.06, +0.21]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖	quality_gate_idle_all_features	memory utilization	-0.12	[-0.16, -0.08]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖	quality_gate_private_action_runner	memory utilization	-0.32	[-0.44, -0.20]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖	quality_gate_logs	% cpu utilization	-3.64	[-4.48, -2.80]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard

Bounds Checks: ❌ Failed

perf	experiment	bounds_check_name	replicates_passed	observed_value	links
✅	quality_gate_idle	intake_connections	10/10	4 = 4	bounds checks dashboard
❌	quality_gate_idle	memory_usage	0/10	174.23MiB > 154MiB	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_idle	total_bytes_received	10/10	729.21KiB ≤ 819.20KiB	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_idle_all_features	intake_connections	10/10	4 = 4	bounds checks dashboard
❌	quality_gate_idle_all_features	memory_usage	8/10	516.65MiB > 512MiB	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_idle_all_features	total_bytes_received	10/10	1.12MiB ≤ 1.25MiB	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_logs	intake_connections	10/10	17 ≤ 40	bounds checks dashboard
❌	quality_gate_logs	memory_usage	2/10	202.92MiB > 195MiB	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_logs	missed_bytes	10/10	0B = 0B	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_logs	total_bytes_received	10/10	264.19MiB ≤ 292MiB	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_metrics_logs	cpu_usage	10/10	416.26 ≤ 2000	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_metrics_logs	intake_connections	10/10	18 ≤ 40	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_metrics_logs	memory_usage	10/10	391.53MiB ≤ 430MiB	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_metrics_logs	missed_bytes	10/10	0B = 0B	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_metrics_logs	total_bytes_received	10/10	0.94GiB ≤ 1.04GiB	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_private_action_runner	memory_usage	10/10	71.54MiB ≤ 75MiB	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_security_idle	cpu_usage	10/10	25.99 ≤ 100	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_security_idle	memory_usage	10/10	325.19MiB ≤ 330MiB	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_security_mean_fs_load	cpu_usage	10/10	70.08 ≤ 200	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_security_mean_fs_load	memory_usage	10/10	302.28MiB ≤ 310MiB	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_security_no_fs_load	cpu_usage	10/10	23.92 ≤ 100	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_security_no_fs_load	memory_usage	10/10	308.69MiB ≤ 320MiB	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:

1. Its estimated |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%, indicating the change is big enough to merit a closer look.

2. 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.

3. 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 Profiling Replicate Execution Failures (ddprof)

Note: Profiling replicas may still be executing. See the debug dashboard for up to date status.

Experiment	Variant	Replicates	Failure	Debug Dashboard
quality_gate_logs	comparison	10	Oom killed	Debug Dashboard
quality_gate_metrics_logs	baseline	10	Oom killed	Debug Dashboard
quality_gate_security_idle	baseline	10	Crashed (exit code: 134)	Debug Dashboard
quality_gate_security_no_fs_load	comparison	10	Crashed (exit code: 134)	Debug Dashboard

CI Pass/Fail Decision

❌ Failed. Some Quality Gates were violated.

• quality_gate_private_action_runner, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check total_bytes_received: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate 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 cpu_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check missed_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_logs, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 2/10 replicas passed. Failed 8 which is > 0. Gate FAILED.
• quality_gate_logs, bounds check missed_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_logs, bounds check total_bytes_received: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_security_mean_fs_load, bounds check cpu_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_security_mean_fs_load, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_security_no_fs_load, bounds check cpu_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_security_no_fs_load, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_idle, bounds check total_bytes_received: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 0/10 replicas passed. Failed 10 which is > 0. Gate FAILED.
• quality_gate_idle, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_security_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_security_idle, bounds check cpu_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check total_bytes_received: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check memory_usage: 8/10 replicas passed. Failed 2 which is > 0. Gate FAILED.

[dd-octo-sts]

Static quality checks

✅ Please find below the results from static quality gates
Comparison made with ancestor d263e53
📊 Static Quality Gates Dashboard
🔗 SQG Job

33 successful checks with minimal change (< 2 KiB)

	Quality gate	Current Size
✅	agent_deb_amd64	759.084 MiB
✅	agent_deb_amd64_fips	712.421 MiB
✅	agent_heroku_amd64	312.179 MiB
✅	agent_msi	642.764 MiB
✅	agent_rpm_amd64	759.068 MiB
✅	agent_rpm_amd64_fips	712.405 MiB
✅	agent_rpm_arm64	735.027 MiB
✅	agent_rpm_arm64_fips	691.635 MiB
✅	agent_suse_amd64	759.068 MiB
✅	agent_suse_amd64_fips	712.405 MiB
✅	agent_suse_arm64	735.027 MiB
✅	agent_suse_arm64_fips	691.635 MiB
✅	docker_agent_amd64	817.708 MiB
✅	docker_agent_arm64	818.702 MiB
✅	docker_agent_jmx_amd64	1008.605 MiB
✅	docker_agent_jmx_arm64	998.252 MiB
✅	docker_cluster_agent_amd64	210.197 MiB
✅	docker_cluster_agent_arm64	223.205 MiB
✅	docker_cws_instrumentation_amd64	7.439 MiB
✅	docker_cws_instrumentation_arm64	6.877 MiB
✅	docker_dogstatsd_amd64	39.474 MiB
✅	docker_dogstatsd_arm64	37.560 MiB
✅	docker_host_profiler_amd64	305.804 MiB
✅	docker_host_profiler_arm64	317.121 MiB
✅	dogstatsd_deb_amd64	30.219 MiB
✅	dogstatsd_deb_arm64	28.243 MiB
✅	dogstatsd_rpm_amd64	30.219 MiB
✅	dogstatsd_suse_amd64	30.219 MiB
✅	iot_agent_deb_amd64	46.408 MiB
✅	iot_agent_deb_arm64	43.069 MiB
✅	iot_agent_deb_armhf	43.852 MiB
✅	iot_agent_rpm_amd64	46.409 MiB
✅	iot_agent_suse_amd64	46.408 MiB

[rdesgroppes]

This comment just to remind this silently disables the version guard for the remaining host-dependent consumer, which you'll address in a subsequent PR, right?

[JSGette]

visual_studio rule will be completely gone in the follow up PR, yes

[rdesgroppes]

i.e. this statement is now unreachable.

[JSGette]

It doesn't matter, I will remove visual_studio.bzl entirely

[rdesgroppes]

platform_toolset is derived from targets[0] only: harmless today since only "x64" is configured but would be potentially wrong (unlikely to be accepted upstream) if this ever needs multi-arch.

[JSGette]

Fair but I would keep it as is for now. I asked the maintainers if they would be willing to accept this upstream. If so I will definitely rework this piece.

[datadog-prod-us1-5]

🎯 Code Coverage (details)
• Patch Coverage: 100.00%
• Overall Coverage: 52.39% (-0.01%)

_{This comment will be updated automatically if new data arrives.
🔗 Commit SHA: 59d659b | Docs | Datadog PR Page | Give us feedback!}