wip - #54928
Conversation
|
@codex review |
dd-octo-sts
Bot
added
internal
![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: 8139bd771f
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".
| // This product includes software developed at Datadog (https://www.Datadoghq.com/). | ||
| // Copyright 2016-present Datadog, Inc. | ||
|
|
||
| package tagset |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When any Bazel target builds //pkg/tagset, its explicit srcs list omits this new interned.go file, while hashing_tags_accumulator.go now references InternedTag and Handle; consequently the package fails to compile with undefined identifiers. Add this file to pkg/tagset/BUILD.bazel.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| "strings" | ||
|
|
||
| pkgconfigmodel "github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/pkg/config/model" | ||
| "github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/pkg/tagset" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When //pkg/util/infratags is built with Bazel strict dependencies, this new import is not backed by a //pkg/tagset entry in pkg/util/infratags/BUILD.bazel, so the target fails dependency validation. Add the new direct dependency to that target.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| // the aggregator as handles rather than being copied into plain strings, and that | ||
| // the handles are canonical: the same tag seen on two different messages resolves | ||
| // to the same handle, so the aggregator holds one copy of the string. | ||
| func TestInternedTagsReachTheSample(t *testing.T) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The impl_test target has an explicit source list that does not include intern_pipeline_test.go, so the repository's supported Bazel test path silently skips both newly added end-to-end interning assertions. Add this file to comp/dogstatsd/server/impl/BUILD.bazel so the coverage runs under Bazel.
AGENTS.md reference: AGENTS.md:L93-L96
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
|
🎯 Code Coverage (details) 🔗 Commit SHA: fd5a241 | Docs | Datadog PR Page | Give us feedback! |
Files inventory check summaryFile checks results against ancestor 1eecf1bc: Results for datadog-agent_7.84.0~devel.git.149.fd5a241.pipeline.131115588-1_amd64.deb:No change detected Results for datadog-iot-agent_7.84.0~devel.git.149.fd5a241.pipeline.131115588-1_amd64.deb:No change detected |
Static quality checks✅ Please find below the results from static quality gates Successful checksInfo
5 successful checks with minimal change (< 2 KiB)
|
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: 1eecf1b Optimization Goals: ✅ Improvement(s) detected
|
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | +1.30 | [+0.43, +2.16] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | quality_gate_private_action_runner | memory utilization | +0.88 | [+0.76, +1.01] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | quality_gate_security_no_fs_load | memory utilization | +0.69 | [+0.55, +0.83] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | +0.50 | [+0.38, +0.63] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | +0.23 | [+0.18, +0.27] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | quality_gate_security_idle | memory utilization | +0.05 | [-0.06, +0.16] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | quality_gate_security_mean_fs_load | memory utilization | +0.04 | [-0.03, +0.11] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | memory utilization | -13.43 | [-13.67, -13.18] | 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 | 174.47MiB > 154MiB | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_idle | total_bytes_received | 10/10 | 741.64KiB ≤ 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 | 7/10 | 522.54MiB > 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 | 18 ≤ 40 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ❌ | quality_gate_logs | memory_usage | 0/10 | 210.82MiB > 195MiB | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_logs | missed_bytes | 10/10 | 0B = 0B | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_logs | total_bytes_received | 10/10 | 264.12MiB ≤ 292MiB | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | cpu_usage | 10/10 | 318.74 ≤ 2000 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | intake_connections | 10/10 | 17 ≤ 40 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | memory_usage | 10/10 | 352.62MiB ≤ 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 | 72.66MiB ≤ 75MiB | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_security_idle | cpu_usage | 10/10 | 27.32 ≤ 100 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ❌ | quality_gate_security_idle | memory_usage | 9/10 | 334.17MiB > 330MiB | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_security_mean_fs_load | cpu_usage | 10/10 | 60.49 ≤ 200 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_security_mean_fs_load | memory_usage | 10/10 | 304.48MiB ≤ 310MiB | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_security_no_fs_load | cpu_usage | 10/10 | 20.60 ≤ 100 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_security_no_fs_load | memory_usage | 10/10 | 311.13MiB ≤ 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_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_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_idle, 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 total_bytes_received: 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 intake_connections: 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 total_bytes_received: 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 memory_usage: 7/10 replicas passed. Failed 3 which is > 0. Gate FAILED.
- quality_gate_private_action_runner, 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_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 9/10 replicas passed. Failed 1 which is > 0. Gate FAILED.
- 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.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 0/10 replicas passed. Failed 10 which is > 0. Gate FAILED.
- quality_gate_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 total_bytes_received: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
1 participant
What does this PR do?
Motivation
Describe how you validated your changes
Additional Notes