OTEL-2289 fix ocb component build script #31941
Conversation
jackgopack4
added
changelog/no-changelog
qa/no-code-change
jackgopack4
requested review from
liustanley and
jade-guiton-dd
and removed request for
liustanley
github-actions
bot
added
the
short review
|
[Fast Unit Tests Report] On pipeline 50743790 (CI Visibility). The following jobs did not run any unit tests: Jobs:
If you modified Go files and expected unit tests to run in these jobs, please double check the job logs. If you think tests should have been executed reach out to #agent-devx-help |
Package size comparisonComparison with ancestor Diff per package
Decision✅ Passed |
| replaces="/tmp/otel-ci/replaces" | ||
| # Get path of all datadog modules, in sorted order, without the initial dot | ||
| dd_mods=$(find . -type f -name "go.mod" -exec dirname {} \; | sort | sed 's/.//') | ||
| echo "replaces:" >> "$replaces" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In my version of the script I had this intermediary replaces file because I potentially had multiple ocb builds to do, but here you can probably pipe the replace statements directly into /tmp/otel-ci/builder-config.yaml.
github-actions
bot
added
medium review
|
That's odd. Let me look at it and ping the right team if necessary |
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: 5ff3a47 Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | +0.55 | [+0.43, +0.68] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | +0.20 | [+0.07, +0.32] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | +0.15 | [+0.10, +0.19] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | +0.12 | [-0.61, +0.86] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | otel_to_otel_logs | ingress throughput | +0.11 | [-0.55, +0.78] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.06 | [-0.72, +0.84] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.06 | [-0.67, +0.79] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.01, +0.01] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.11, +0.09] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | egress throughput | -0.02 | [-0.91, +0.87] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | -0.04 | [-2.97, +2.89] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | egress throughput | -0.04 | [-0.90, +0.81] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.04 | [-0.83, +0.74] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.06 | [-0.68, +0.57] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.07 | [-0.92, +0.79] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | -0.07 | [-0.17, +0.03] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | egress throughput | -0.07 | [-0.53, +0.39] | 1 | Logs |
Bounds Checks: ✅ Passed
| perf | experiment | bounds_check_name | replicates_passed | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | quality_gate_idle | memory_usage | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory_usage | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_logs | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | quality_gate_logs | memory_usage | 10/10 |
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
✅ Passed. All Quality Gates passed.
- quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check lost_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
|
/merge |
Devflow running:
|
dd-mergequeue
bot
deleted the
jackgopack4/OTEL-2289-fix-datadog-ocb-test
branch
What does this PR do?
fixes failure of ocb build test script when new modules are being published
Motivation
failure of ddflare and subsequent test (now named datadog_otel_components_build) when preparing PRs for release
Describe how you validated your changes
bumped all datadog-agent components to a nonexistent version and ran script locally (test/otel/testdata/ocb_build_script.sh)
Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
none, just updates a test.
Additional Notes