Improve the run-e2e skill - #54924
Conversation
ofek
added
changelog/no-changelog
|
@codex review |
![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: c76b128c93
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Codex has been enabled to automatically 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 👍.
When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".
| if state == "error": | ||
| # A container that failed to become ready holds no state worth keeping, and | ||
| # `dda env dev start` refuses this state, so clear it out and build a fresh one. | ||
| print(f"Dev env `{instance}` is in an error state; removing it before retrying.", file=sys.stderr) | ||
| run(env_command(instance, "remove"), capture=False) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When a previously usable env with a live or --keep-stack stack fails to restart and transitions to error, the next up unconditionally removes the container and its only copy of ~/.pulumi, orphaning the cloud resources. The environment documentation defines error only as a generic failure state (docs/public/tutorials/dev/env.md:139-147) and says removal deletes all associated data (docs/public/tutorials/dev/env.md:239-247), so it is not evidence that the container never became ready; treat this state as unknown and require explicit confirmation instead of deleting it automatically.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| ## Running `go test` directly | ||
|
|
||
| From `test/new-e2e`, skipping the invoke wrapper — and therefore skipping its preflight checks and its | ||
| `PULUMI_CONFIG_PASSPHRASE` export, so set that yourself: | ||
|
|
||
| ```bash | ||
| cd test/new-e2e && go test ./examples -timeout 0 -run '^TestVMSuite$' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When an agent follows this section for suite-specific flags, it is explicitly told to bypass the invoke wrapper and run go test directly. This repository relies on custom build tags computed by dda inv, so that command can omit source files and produce an invalid E2E result in addition to skipping the preflight and passphrase setup already acknowledged here; keep the run on dda inv new-e2e-tests.run and pass suite arguments through --extra-flags.
AGENTS.md reference: AGENTS.md:L35-L46
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| ensure_pulumi_backend(args.id) | ||
| check_aws(args.id) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When the selected suite uses a local provisioner, up still unconditionally runs an AWS STS check and exits unless the user completes sandbox SSO, even though the new reference explicitly says local provisioners need no cloud credentials (references/devenv.md:103-113). This prevents developers without a current AWS session from running otherwise local, cost-free targets; make the bootstrap provider-aware or allow the caller to disable the AWS probe for a verified local target.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| description: >- | ||
| Run one already-written new-e2e test locally and triage the setup failures that stop it — "run the | ||
| containers e2e tests", "my e2e run fails before any test starts". | ||
| allowed-tools: Bash, Read, AskUserQuestion | ||
| argument-hint: "[target, e.g. ./tests/agent-subcommands/flare] [TestName] [--host] [--keep-stack] [--stack-name-suffix <s>]" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Skill review scores: Description 24/25, Writing philosophy 24/25, Structure/progressive disclosure 25/25, Output/examples 20/25; total 93/100. Top improvements: (1) add the required owning team to the artifact metadata, (2) state host prerequisites such as dda, Docker, Python/PyYAML, and cloud access in one discoverable section, and (3) add a concrete completed report example rather than only command examples and a placeholder template. Overall recommendation: Approve.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
Files inventory check summaryFile checks results against ancestor ae05ce62: Results for datadog-agent_7.84.0~devel.git.170.42eb608.pipeline.131137220-1_amd64.deb:No change detected Results for datadog-iot-agent_7.84.0~devel.git.170.42eb608.pipeline.131137220-1_amd64.deb:No change detected |
Also fill in the flag help for `new-e2e-tests.run`, where nine options had none, so the skill flag reference can point at `--help` rather than carry its own copy that would drift.
c76b128 to
42eb608
Compare
Static quality checks✅ Please find below the results from static quality gates 32 successful checks with minimal change (< 2 KiB)
|
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: ae05ce6 Optimization Goals: ❌ Regression(s) detected
|
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ❌ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | +6.71 | [+5.78, +7.64] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | quality_gate_security_mean_fs_load | memory utilization | +0.27 | [+0.20, +0.35] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | memory utilization | +0.26 | [+0.01, +0.51] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | -0.24 | [-0.36, -0.12] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | quality_gate_security_no_fs_load | memory utilization | -0.31 | [-0.46, -0.17] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | quality_gate_security_idle | memory utilization | -0.33 | [-0.43, -0.23] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | quality_gate_private_action_runner | memory utilization | -0.34 | [-0.46, -0.22] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | -0.35 | [-0.40, -0.31] | 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 | 171.58MiB > 154MiB | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_idle | total_bytes_received | 10/10 | 740.91KiB ≤ 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 | 524.11MiB > 512MiB | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | total_bytes_received | 10/10 | 1.13MiB ≤ 1.25MiB | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_logs | intake_connections | 10/10 | 17 ≤ 40 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ❌ | quality_gate_logs | memory_usage | 2/10 | 210.03MiB > 195MiB | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_logs | missed_bytes | 10/10 | 0B = 0B | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_logs | total_bytes_received | 10/10 | 264.44MiB ≤ 292MiB | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | cpu_usage | 10/10 | 367.90 ≤ 2000 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | intake_connections | 10/10 | 19 ≤ 40 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | memory_usage | 10/10 | 405.35MiB ≤ 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 | 71.71MiB ≤ 75MiB | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_security_idle | cpu_usage | 10/10 | 27.10 ≤ 100 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_security_idle | memory_usage | 10/10 | 322.12MiB ≤ 330MiB | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_security_mean_fs_load | cpu_usage | 10/10 | 69.70 ≤ 200 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_security_mean_fs_load | memory_usage | 10/10 | 307.08MiB ≤ 310MiB | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_security_no_fs_load | cpu_usage | 10/10 | 24.33 ≤ 100 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_security_no_fs_load | memory_usage | 10/10 | 312.25MiB ≤ 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:
-
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".
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_security_no_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_logs, bounds check total_bytes_received: 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: 2/10 replicas passed. Failed 8 which is > 0. Gate FAILED.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check intake_connections: 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: 0/10 replicas passed. Failed 10 which is > 0. Gate FAILED.
- quality_gate_idle, bounds check total_bytes_received: 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 memory_usage: 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 cpu_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check missed_bytes: 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.
- 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_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_security_mean_fs_load, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_security_mean_fs_load, bounds check cpu_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
1 participant
What does this PR do?
Motivation
Describe how you validated your changes
Additional Notes