Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

go.mod: Require datadog-operator/api module #32437

Draft
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

go.mod: Require datadog-operator/api module #32437

wants to merge 4 commits into from
+7 −3

Conversation

swang392
Copy link

What does this PR do?

Adds a dependency to a new go module in datadog-operator for CRDs (datadog-operator/api). The PR to create this new go module is [here](https://github.com/DataDog/datadog-operator/pull/1565).

This PR is marked as a draft and is blocked until the PR in datadog-operator is ready to merge. We will need to update the dependency in go.mod to the commit in main, for now it points to the sha of my latest commit in the PR.

Motivation

A dependency on a smaller go module with a smaller dependency tree will make updating easier in the future.

Describe how you validated your changes

No changes in behavior

@bits-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

bits-bot commented Dec 20, 2024 •
edited
Loading

CLA assistant check
All committers have signed the CLA.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the short review PR is simple enough to be reviewed quickly label Dec 20, 2024
@cit-pr-commenter cit-pr-commenter
Copy link

Go Package Import Differences

Baseline: c0f4c10
Comparison: fbea61d

binaryosarchchange
cluster-agentlinuxamd64
+0, -4 
-github.com/DataDog/datadog-api-client-go/v2
-github.com/DataDog/datadog-api-client-go/v2/api/datadog
-github.com/DataDog/datadog-api-client-go/v2/api/datadogV1
-github.com/DataDog/datadog-operator/api/datadoghq/common
cluster-agentlinuxarm64
+0, -4 
-github.com/DataDog/datadog-api-client-go/v2
-github.com/DataDog/datadog-api-client-go/v2/api/datadog
-github.com/DataDog/datadog-api-client-go/v2/api/datadogV1
-github.com/DataDog/datadog-operator/api/datadoghq/common

@swang392 swang392 added the qa/done QA done before merge and regressions are covered by tests label Dec 20, 2024
@cit-pr-commenter cit-pr-commenter
Copy link

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Metrics dashboard
Target profiles
Run ID: a5628f56-b473-471e-863c-3ddc092076a3

Baseline: c0f4c10
Comparison: fbea61d
Diff

Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf experiment goal Δ mean % Δ mean % CI trials links
➖ otel_to_otel_logs ingress throughput +0.62 [-0.08, +1.32] 1 Logs
➖ uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu % cpu utilization +0.56 [-0.12, +1.25] 1 Logs
➖ file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency egress throughput +0.13 [-0.52, +0.77] 1 Logs
➖ file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load egress throughput +0.10 [-0.38, +0.58] 1 Logs
➖ file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency egress throughput +0.08 [-0.70, +0.86] 1 Logs
➖ tcp_syslog_to_blackhole ingress throughput +0.06 [-0.00, +0.13] 1 Logs
➖ uds_dogstatsd_to_api ingress throughput +0.01 [-0.11, +0.13] 1 Logs
➖ file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 egress throughput +0.00 [-0.78, +0.79] 1 Logs
➖ tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude ingress throughput +0.00 [-0.01, +0.01] 1 Logs
➖ file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency egress throughput -0.01 [-0.86, +0.83] 1 Logs
➖ file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 egress throughput -0.02 [-0.87, +0.84] 1 Logs
➖ file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency egress throughput -0.03 [-0.79, +0.73] 1 Logs
➖ quality_gate_idle_all_features memory utilization -0.05 [-0.15, +0.04] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖ file_tree memory utilization -0.13 [-0.26, -0.00] 1 Logs
➖ file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency egress throughput -0.14 [-0.91, +0.64] 1 Logs
➖ quality_gate_logs % cpu utilization -0.29 [-3.51, +2.93] 1 Logs
➖ quality_gate_idle memory utilization -0.34 [-0.38, -0.31] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard

Bounds Checks: ❌ Failed

perf experiment bounds_check_name replicates_passed links
❌ file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency lost_bytes 9/10
❌ file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency lost_bytes 9/10
✅ 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 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:

  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 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.
  • quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
changelog/no-changelog qa/done QA done before merge and regressions are covered by tests short review PR is simple enough to be reviewed quickly team/agent-onboarding team/container-ecosystems
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@swang392 @bits-bot