[AMLII-1988] Integrations collected from scheduler #28517
Conversation
… brian/integrations-scheduled-from-collector # Conflicts: # pkg/logs/launchers/integration/launcher_test.go
soberpeach
changed the title
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsRun ID: 8276a12c-e504-42eb-b501-ecb05431eaca Metrics dashboard Target profiles Baseline: 50a65d6 Performance changes are noted in the perf column of each table:
No significant changes in experiment optimization goalsConfidence level: 90.00% There were no significant changes in experiment optimization goals at this confidence level and effect size tolerance.
|
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ➖ | basic_py_check | % cpu utilization | +0.27 | [-2.39, +2.93] | Logs |
| ➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | +0.27 | [+0.21, +0.33] | Logs |
| ➖ | otel_to_otel_logs | ingress throughput | +0.23 | [-0.58, +1.04] | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.00, +0.00] | Logs |
| ➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.01, +0.01] | Logs |
| ➖ | idle | memory utilization | -0.03 | [-0.06, +0.00] | Logs |
| ➖ | pycheck_lots_of_tags | % cpu utilization | -0.99 | [-3.38, +1.40] | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | -1.20 | [-1.99, -0.41] | Logs |
| ➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | -2.44 | [-15.11, +10.23] | Logs |
Bounds Checks
| perf | experiment | bounds_check_name | replicates_passed |
|---|---|---|---|
| ✅ | idle | memory_usage | 10/10 |
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:
-
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".
Tied to logs agent core lifecycle
Go Package Import DifferencesBaseline: 50a65d6
|
Test changes on VMUse this command from test-infra-definitions to manually test this PR changes on a VM: inv create-vm --pipeline-id=42704789 --os-family=ubuntuNote: This applies to commit 3e023e0 |
soberpeach
changed the title
|
/merge |
|
🚂 MergeQueue: waiting for PR to be ready This merge request is not mergeable yet, because of pending checks/missing approvals. It will be added to the queue as soon as checks pass and/or get approvals. Use |
|
/merge |
|
🚂 MergeQueue: waiting for PR to be ready This merge request is not mergeable yet, because of pending checks/missing approvals. It will be added to the queue as soon as checks pass and/or get approvals. Use |
Serverless Benchmark Results
tl;drUse these benchmarks as an insight tool during development.
What is this benchmarking?The The benchmark is run using a large variety of lambda request payloads. In the charts below, there is one row for each event payload type. How do I interpret these charts?The charts below comes from The benchstat docs explain how to interpret these charts.
I need more helpFirst off, do not worry if the benchmarks are failing. They are not tests. The intention is for them to be a tool for you to use during development. If you would like a hand interpreting the results come chat with us in Benchmark stats |
|
🚂 MergeQueue: pull request added to the queue The median merge time in Use |
dd-mergequeue
bot
deleted the
brian/integrations-scheduled-from-collector
branch
|
The backport to To backport manually, run these commands in your terminal: # Fetch latest updates from GitHub
git fetch
# Create a new working tree
git worktree add .worktrees/backport-7.57.x 7.57.x
# Navigate to the new working tree
cd .worktrees/backport-7.57.x
# Create a new branch
git switch --create backport-28517-to-7.57.x
# Cherry-pick the merged commit of this pull request and resolve the conflicts
git cherry-pick -x --mainline 1 e1b7c5943023f1cbee8f51bf5cb34ae77b09ae1e
# Push it to GitHub
git push --set-upstream origin backport-28517-to-7.57.x
# Go back to the original working tree
cd ../..
# Delete the working tree
git worktree remove .worktrees/backport-7.57.xThen, create a pull request where the |
Co-authored-by: carlosroman <carlos.roman@datadoghq.com> Co-authored-by: gh123man <brian.floersch@datadoghq.com> (cherry picked from commit e1b7c59)
What does this PR do?
Fixes a vulnerability that allowed path traversal from integration logs coming form integrations logs configurations. This was because users could set arbitrary file names, including
../which would allow path traversal the log file created by the integration launcher. This fix removes that logic and instead passes theintegrationIDproduced in the python collector to the launcher, which avoids that problem.Also fixes creating multiple files for a single config that contains multiple integration configs. Previously all integration configs were assumed to map to one possible integration, however with containers, it is possible to have multiple integrations each with the same configuration sending logs to the agent. This fix changes it so each integration with will have its own file.
Motivation
See above
Additional Notes
Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
Describe how to test/QA your changes
Create a check in checks.d like so:
custom_checkvalue.py:and a configuration for it in
conf.dlike socustom_checkvalue.yaml:And run the agent. You should see logs coming from the custom check with the correct,
source,service, andtags(env:dev, andbar:foo) applied.