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

fix codeql warnings #28725

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Aug 26, 2024
Merged

fix codeql warnings #28725

merged 3 commits into from
Aug 26, 2024

Conversation

paulcacheux
Copy link
Contributor

@paulcacheux paulcacheux commented Aug 24, 2024

What does this PR do?

This PR fixes a few warnings related to our codeql setup:

Motivation

Additional Notes

Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs

Describe how to test/QA your changes

@paulcacheux paulcacheux force-pushed the paulcacheux/fix-codeql-warnings branch from a0ba446 to 9eb25cd Compare August 24, 2024 21:47
@paulcacheux paulcacheux added changelog/no-changelog qa/done Skip QA week as QA was done before merge and regressions are covered by tests labels Aug 24, 2024
@agent-platform-auto-pr
Copy link
Contributor

agent-platform-auto-pr bot commented Aug 24, 2024

[Fast Unit Tests Report]

On pipeline 42752327 (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-devx-help

@pr-commenter
Copy link

pr-commenter bot commented Aug 24, 2024

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Run ID: e472aa72-ef12-4af0-b85a-4ae5bd1078c5 Metrics dashboard Target profiles

Baseline: 5893bb6
Comparison: 9eb25cd

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.

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf experiment goal Δ mean % Δ mean % CI links
tcp_syslog_to_blackhole ingress throughput +2.05 [-10.84, +14.93] Logs
pycheck_lots_of_tags % cpu utilization +1.87 [-0.70, +4.43] Logs
otel_to_otel_logs ingress throughput +0.76 [-0.05, +1.57] Logs
file_tree memory utilization +0.22 [+0.15, +0.29] Logs
tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude ingress throughput -0.00 [-0.01, +0.01] Logs
uds_dogstatsd_to_api ingress throughput -0.00 [-0.00, +0.00] Logs
idle memory utilization -0.02 [-0.05, +0.01] Logs
uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu % cpu utilization -0.67 [-1.47, +0.14] Logs
basic_py_check % cpu utilization -0.84 [-3.51, +1.82] 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:

  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".

@paulcacheux paulcacheux marked this pull request as ready for review August 25, 2024 08:25
@paulcacheux paulcacheux requested a review from a team as a code owner August 25, 2024 08:25
@paulcacheux paulcacheux changed the title [WIP] fix codeql warnings fix codeql warnings Aug 25, 2024
@paulcacheux
Copy link
Contributor Author

/merge

@dd-devflow
Copy link

dd-devflow bot commented Aug 26, 2024

🚂 MergeQueue: pull request added to the queue

The median merge time in main is 22m.

Use /merge -c to cancel this operation!

@dd-mergequeue dd-mergequeue bot merged commit cec51f0 into main Aug 26, 2024
227 checks passed
@dd-mergequeue dd-mergequeue bot deleted the paulcacheux/fix-codeql-warnings branch August 26, 2024 08:48
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the 7.58.0 milestone Aug 26, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
changelog/no-changelog qa/done Skip QA week as QA was done before merge and regressions are covered by tests team/agent-devx-infra
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants