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.

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

[APR-121] Correct the changelog entry for the user-agent addition #25072

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 24, 2024

Conversation

jszwedko
Copy link
Contributor

Requests to /intake already had the correct user-agent header since they are sent by the default forwarder.

Follow-up to #24582

What does this PR do?

Motivation

Additional Notes

Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs

Describe how to test/QA your changes

Requests to `/intake` already had the correct user-agent header since
they are sent by the default forwarder.

Signed-off-by: Jesse Szwedko <jesse.szwedko@datadoghq.com>
@jszwedko jszwedko added the qa/no-code-change Skip QA week as there is no code change in Agent code label Apr 24, 2024
@jszwedko jszwedko requested a review from a team as a code owner April 24, 2024 14:11
@agent-platform-auto-pr
Copy link
Contributor

[Fast Unit Tests Report]

On pipeline 32818792 (CI Visibility). The following jobs did not run any unit tests:

Jobs:
  • tests_deb-arm64-py3
  • tests_deb-x64-py3
  • tests_flavor_dogstatsd_deb-x64
  • tests_flavor_heroku_deb-x64
  • tests_flavor_iot_deb-x64
  • tests_rpm-arm64-py3
  • tests_rpm-x64-py3
  • tests_windows-x64

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-developer-experience

@pr-commenter
Copy link

pr-commenter bot commented Apr 24, 2024

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Run ID: a9f66725-884e-4edd-9917-595b1d5e6696
Baseline: d6b993a
Comparison: fd07302

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

No significant changes in experiment optimization goals

Confidence level: 90.00%
Effect size tolerance: |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%

There were no significant changes in experiment optimization goals at this confidence level and effect size tolerance.

Experiments ignored for regressions

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

perf experiment goal Δ mean % Δ mean % CI
file_to_blackhole % cpu utilization +9.42 [+2.84, +15.99]

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf experiment goal Δ mean % Δ mean % CI
tcp_syslog_to_blackhole ingress throughput +9.51 [-12.62, +31.64]
file_to_blackhole % cpu utilization +9.42 [+2.84, +15.99]
uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu % cpu utilization +2.41 [-0.41, +5.24]
process_agent_real_time_mode memory utilization +0.82 [+0.77, +0.88]
pycheck_1000_100byte_tags % cpu utilization +0.24 [-4.40, +4.88]
otel_to_otel_logs ingress throughput +0.20 [-0.17, +0.56]
process_agent_standard_check_with_stats memory utilization +0.13 [+0.07, +0.18]
uds_dogstatsd_to_api ingress throughput +0.04 [-0.17, +0.24]
trace_agent_json ingress throughput +0.01 [-0.02, +0.03]
trace_agent_msgpack ingress throughput -0.00 [-0.00, +0.00]
tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude ingress throughput -0.03 [-0.07, +0.01]
basic_py_check % cpu utilization -0.03 [-2.48, +2.42]
process_agent_standard_check memory utilization -0.07 [-0.13, -0.01]
idle memory utilization -0.12 [-0.17, -0.07]

Explanation

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".

@jszwedko
Copy link
Contributor Author

/merge

@dd-devflow
Copy link

dd-devflow bot commented Apr 24, 2024

🚂 MergeQueue

Pull request added to the queue.

This build is going to start soon! (estimated merge in less than 23m)

Use /merge -c to cancel this operation!

@dd-mergequeue dd-mergequeue bot merged commit cd7ca46 into main Apr 24, 2024
185 of 186 checks passed
@dd-mergequeue dd-mergequeue bot deleted the jszwedko/correct-user-agent-header-changelog branch April 24, 2024 23:29
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the 7.54.0 milestone Apr 24, 2024
alexgallotta pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 9, 2024
…5072)

Requests to `/intake` already had the correct user-agent header since
they are sent by the default forwarder.

Signed-off-by: Jesse Szwedko <jesse.szwedko@datadoghq.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
qa/no-code-change Skip QA week as there is no code change in Agent code
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants