feat(trace): add SQLObfuscationMode in /info APMSP-2764#48857
Open
feat(trace): add SQLObfuscationMode in /info APMSP-2764#48857
Conversation
github-actions
bot
added
the
short review
Contributor
Files inventory check summaryFile checks results against ancestor 5f1f4ffe: Results for datadog-agent_7.79.0~devel.git.682.dfb3c5b.pipeline.107414682-1_amd64.deb:No change detected |
Contributor
Static quality checks✅ Please find below the results from static quality gates Successful checksInfo
27 successful checks with minimal change (< 2 KiB)
On-wire sizes (compressed)
|
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: 5f1f4ff Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ➖ | docker_containers_cpu | % cpu utilization | -2.58 | [-5.50, +0.35] | 1 | Logs |
Fine details of change detection per experiment
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | +0.62 | [+0.43, +0.81] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | ddot_metrics | memory utilization | +0.49 | [+0.30, +0.67] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | otlp_ingest_logs | memory utilization | +0.48 | [+0.38, +0.59] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | otlp_ingest_metrics | memory utilization | +0.48 | [+0.32, +0.64] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | ddot_metrics_sum_delta | memory utilization | +0.40 | [+0.23, +0.57] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | ddot_metrics_sum_cumulativetodelta_exporter | memory utilization | +0.18 | [-0.04, +0.40] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | +0.17 | [+0.11, +0.22] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | ddot_logs | memory utilization | +0.10 | [+0.04, +0.16] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.05 | [-0.40, +0.50] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | +0.05 | [+0.01, +0.08] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | +0.01 | [-0.05, +0.07] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.20, +0.21] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_v3 | ingress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.21, +0.21] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.16, +0.15] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.12, +0.10] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.05 | [-0.46, +0.36] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.07 | [-0.60, +0.47] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | ddot_metrics_sum_cumulative | memory utilization | -0.21 | [-0.35, -0.07] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | docker_containers_memory | memory utilization | -0.22 | [-0.30, -0.14] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_20mb_12k_contexts_20_senders | memory utilization | -0.30 | [-0.36, -0.23] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | memory utilization | -0.40 | [-0.64, -0.16] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | -1.03 | [-2.69, +0.63] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | docker_containers_cpu | % cpu utilization | -2.58 | [-5.50, +0.35] | 1 | Logs |
Bounds Checks: ✅ Passed
| perf | experiment | bounds_check_name | replicates_passed | observed_value | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ✅ | docker_containers_cpu | simple_check_run | 10/10 | 681 ≥ 26 | |
| ✅ | docker_containers_memory | memory_usage | 10/10 | 281.20MiB ≤ 370MiB | |
| ✅ | docker_containers_memory | simple_check_run | 10/10 | 509 ≥ 26 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | 0.19GiB ≤ 1.20GiB | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | missed_bytes | 10/10 | 0B = 0B | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | 0.23GiB ≤ 1.20GiB | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | missed_bytes | 10/10 | 0B = 0B | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | 0.20GiB ≤ 1.20GiB | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | missed_bytes | 10/10 | 0B = 0B | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | 0.21GiB ≤ 1.20GiB | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | missed_bytes | 10/10 | 0B = 0B | |
| ✅ | quality_gate_idle | intake_connections | 10/10 | 3 = 3 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_idle | memory_usage | 10/10 | 175.56MiB ≤ 181MiB | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | intake_connections | 10/10 | 3 = 3 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory_usage | 10/10 | 497.86MiB ≤ 550MiB | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_logs | intake_connections | 10/10 | 4 ≤ 6 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_logs | memory_usage | 10/10 | 210.03MiB ≤ 220MiB | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_logs | missed_bytes | 10/10 | 0B = 0B | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | cpu_usage | 10/10 | 373.93 ≤ 2000 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | intake_connections | 10/10 | 4 ≤ 6 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | memory_usage | 10/10 | 426.14MiB ≤ 475MiB | 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:
-
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_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 missed_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check cpu_usage: 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_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: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
Eldolfin
added
changelog/no-changelog
![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: ae39946165
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to 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 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
- used in CSS obfuscation
Eldolfin
force-pushed
the
oscarld/APMSP-2764-expose-missing-sql-obfuscation-mode-in-info
branch
from
ae39946 to
f44708e
Compare
…ation-mode-in-info
github-actions
bot
added
medium review
…de test
The test was comparing a plain string "" to obfuscate.ObfuscationMode(""),
which caused a type assertion failure with testify's assert.Equal.
Use the correct ObfuscationMode type in the assertion.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This config field is needed for CSS obfuscation. In fact this is the only needed obfuscation config field AFAIK.
What does this PR do?
Motivation
Describe how you validated your changes
Additional Notes