[APMS-20023] Add fallback for hidden URI in JDBC

[vpellan]

What does this PR do?

Add fallback for hidden URI in sequel with JDBC. With DataSource/JNDI-managed connection it is possible to have a hidden URI that can still be access through

db.synchronize do |conn|
  conn.get_meta_data.get_url if conn.respond_to?(:get_meta_data)
end

Motivation:

APMS-20023

Change log entry

None. We do not officially support JRuby anymore and this is specific to JRuby

Additional Notes:

How to test the change?

The CI does not test this because we do not test on JRuby anymore. So the tests are best effort and reproduce what would happen on JRuby, in a Ruby env

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 6c8a2cbbe4

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".

[datadog-official]

🎉 All green!

🧪 All tests passed
❄️ No new flaky tests detected

🎯 Code Coverage (details)
• Patch Coverage: 100.00%
• Overall Coverage: 90.02% (-0.01%)

_{This comment will be updated automatically if new data arrives.
🔗 Commit SHA: f1c3244 | Docs | Datadog PR Page | Give us feedback!}

[pr-commenter]

Benchmarks

Benchmark execution time: 2026-07-30 12:21:25

Comparing candidate commit f1c3244 in PR branch vpellan/jdbc-fallback-for-hidden-uri with baseline commit 90f3c3c in branch master.

📊 Benchmarking dashboard

Found 0 performance improvements and 0 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 48 metrics, 1 unstable metrics.

Explanation

This is an A/B test comparing a candidate commit's performance against that of a baseline commit. Performance changes are noted in the tables below as:

• 🟩 = significantly better candidate vs. baseline
• 🟥 = significantly worse candidate vs. baseline

We compute a confidence interval (CI) over the relative difference of means between metrics from the candidate and baseline commits, considering the baseline as the reference.

If the CI is entirely outside the configured SIGNIFICANT_IMPACT_THRESHOLD (or the deprecated UNCONFIDENCE_THRESHOLD), the change is considered significant.

Feel free to reach out to #apm-benchmarking-platform on Slack if you have any questions.

More details about the CI and significant changes

You can imagine this CI as a range of values that is likely to contain the true difference of means between the candidate and baseline commits.

CIs of the difference of means are often centered around 0%, because often changes are not that big:

---------------------------------(------|---^--------)-------------------------------->
                              -0.6%    0%  0.3%     +1.2%
                                 |          |        |
         lower bound of the CI --'          |        |
sample mean (center of the CI) -------------'        |
         upper bound of the CI ----------------------'

As described above, a change is considered significant if the CI is entirely outside the configured SIGNIFICANT_IMPACT_THRESHOLD (or the deprecated UNCONFIDENCE_THRESHOLD).

For instance, for an execution time metric, this confidence interval indicates a significantly worse performance:

----------------------------------------|---------|---(---------^---------)---------->
                                       0%        1%  1.3%      2.2%      3.1%
                                                  |   |         |         |
       significant impact threshold --------------'   |         |         |
                      lower bound of CI --------------'         |         |
       sample mean (center of the CI) --------------------------'         |
                      upper bound of CI ----------------------------------'

Unstable benchmarks

These benchmarks have a confidence interval too wide to call a change; treat them as noise rather than signal.

scenario:tracing - trace.to_digest - Continue

• unstable throughput [-1852.340op/s; +1161.353op/s] or [-6.266%; +3.929%]

[Strech]

To be honest changes are not easy to follow (so to say)

[Strech]

If we return nil, does it make more senseto rescue in method body instead to return nil? It will be a ruby-style, not AI style then

def method
  # ...
  url = "..."
  # ...
rescue
  logger  { "..." }
  nil
end

[Strech]

In this condition, we know for a fact that parsed host/port/database are nil, does it make sense to fallback to parsed here?

[Strech]

Before the condition was !nil and we used those values in assignments, not we potentially can have host or port as nil value, not sure that I can follow