Skip to content

[FA] - Remove flake mark for apm inject tests#50588

Merged
gh-worker-dd-mergequeue-cf854d[bot] merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
erwann.masson/remove-flake-apm-inject
May 11, 2026
Merged

[FA] - Remove flake mark for apm inject tests#50588
gh-worker-dd-mergequeue-cf854d[bot] merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
erwann.masson/remove-flake-apm-inject

Conversation

@Hitsuji-M
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@Hitsuji-M Hitsuji-M commented May 11, 2026

Test failures fixed by #50400

@Hitsuji-M Hitsuji-M self-assigned this May 11, 2026
@dd-octo-sts dd-octo-sts Bot added the internal Identify a non-fork PR label May 11, 2026
@github-actions github-actions Bot added the short review PR is simple enough to be reviewed quickly label May 11, 2026
@Hitsuji-M Hitsuji-M force-pushed the erwann.masson/remove-flake-apm-inject branch from 53457eb to 360bf54 Compare May 11, 2026 09:31
@datadog-official

This comment has been minimized.

@dd-octo-sts
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

dd-octo-sts Bot commented May 11, 2026

Files inventory check summary

File checks results against ancestor 45634553:

Results for datadog-agent_7.80.0~devel.git.629.324ee54.pipeline.112472331-1_amd64.deb:

No change detected

@Hitsuji-M Hitsuji-M added changelog/no-changelog No changelog entry needed qa/no-code-change No code change in Agent code requiring validation labels May 11, 2026
@Hitsuji-M Hitsuji-M marked this pull request as ready for review May 11, 2026 11:51
@Hitsuji-M Hitsuji-M requested review from a team as code owners May 11, 2026 11:51
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 360bf545c0

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".

Comment thread test/new-e2e/tests/installer/unix/package_apm_inject_test.go
Comment thread test/new-e2e/tests/installer/unix/package_apm_inject_test.go
@github-actions github-actions Bot added medium review PR review might take time and removed short review PR is simple enough to be reviewed quickly labels May 11, 2026
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@natitsechanski natitsechanski left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

lgtm

@gh-worker-dd-mergequeue-cf854d gh-worker-dd-mergequeue-cf854d Bot merged commit 2733cb8 into main May 11, 2026
234 checks passed
@gh-worker-dd-mergequeue-cf854d gh-worker-dd-mergequeue-cf854d Bot deleted the erwann.masson/remove-flake-apm-inject branch May 11, 2026 16:26
@github-actions github-actions Bot added this to the 7.80.0 milestone May 11, 2026
@cit-pr-commenter-54b7da
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Metrics dashboard
Target profiles
Run ID: e1e25ab8-1fb2-4ac5-8141-06dfb1e5081f

Baseline: 63b8e61
Comparison: 2733cb8
Diff

Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected

Experiments ignored for regressions

Regressions in experiments with settings containing erratic: true are ignored.

perf experiment goal Δ mean % Δ mean % CI trials links
docker_containers_cpu % cpu utilization +3.19 [+0.23, +6.14] 1 Logs

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf experiment goal Δ mean % Δ mean % CI trials links
docker_containers_cpu % cpu utilization +3.19 [+0.23, +6.14] 1 Logs
quality_gate_metrics_logs memory utilization +0.78 [+0.52, +1.03] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
docker_containers_memory memory utilization +0.53 [+0.42, +0.63] 1 Logs
ddot_logs memory utilization +0.45 [+0.39, +0.51] 1 Logs
ddot_metrics_sum_cumulativetodelta_exporter memory utilization +0.41 [+0.17, +0.65] 1 Logs
file_tree memory utilization +0.36 [+0.31, +0.41] 1 Logs
otlp_ingest_metrics memory utilization +0.07 [-0.09, +0.22] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency egress throughput +0.05 [-0.38, +0.48] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency egress throughput +0.04 [-0.10, +0.18] 1 Logs
uds_dogstatsd_20mb_12k_contexts_20_senders memory utilization +0.04 [-0.01, +0.09] 1 Logs
ddot_metrics memory utilization +0.04 [-0.17, +0.24] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency egress throughput +0.02 [-0.39, +0.43] 1 Logs
quality_gate_idle memory utilization +0.01 [-0.04, +0.06] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude ingress throughput -0.00 [-0.10, +0.10] 1 Logs
uds_dogstatsd_to_api ingress throughput -0.00 [-0.20, +0.20] 1 Logs
uds_dogstatsd_to_api_v3 ingress throughput -0.01 [-0.22, +0.19] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency egress throughput -0.04 [-0.56, +0.48] 1 Logs
ddot_metrics_sum_delta memory utilization -0.26 [-0.43, -0.08] 1 Logs
quality_gate_idle_all_features memory utilization -0.46 [-0.50, -0.43] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
otlp_ingest_logs memory utilization -0.60 [-0.69, -0.51] 1 Logs
ddot_metrics_sum_cumulative memory utilization -0.83 [-0.99, -0.67] 1 Logs
quality_gate_logs % cpu utilization -0.88 [-1.85, +0.09] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
tcp_syslog_to_blackhole ingress throughput -2.83 [-3.02, -2.63] 1 Logs

Bounds Checks: ✅ Passed

perf experiment bounds_check_name replicates_passed observed_value links
docker_containers_cpu simple_check_run 10/10 725 ≥ 26
docker_containers_memory memory_usage 10/10 242.81MiB ≤ 370MiB
docker_containers_memory simple_check_run 10/10 536 ≥ 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 0.19GiB ≤ 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 10/10 142.63MiB ≤ 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 10/10 468.44MiB ≤ 495MiB bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_logs intake_connections 10/10 3 ≤ 6 bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_logs memory_usage 10/10 175.69MiB ≤ 195MiB bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_logs missed_bytes 10/10 0B = 0B bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_metrics_logs cpu_usage 10/10 352.69 ≤ 2000 bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_metrics_logs intake_connections 10/10 3 ≤ 6 bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_metrics_logs memory_usage 10/10 382.95MiB ≤ 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:

  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".

CI Pass/Fail Decision

Passed. All Quality Gates passed.

  • quality_gate_logs, bounds check intake_connections: 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_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 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 cpu_usage: 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 missed_bytes: 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: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.

chouetz pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 13, 2026
Test failures fixed by #50400


Co-authored-by: erwann.masson <erwann.masson@datadoghq.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

changelog/no-changelog No changelog entry needed internal Identify a non-fork PR medium review PR review might take time qa/no-code-change No code change in Agent code requiring validation team/windows-products

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants