update ECS v4 client

[kangyili]

Update ECS V4 client and types. This PR is used by #21836

Motivation

Additional Notes

Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs

Describe how to test/QA your changes

[pr-commenter]

Bloop Bleep... Dogbot Here

Regression Detector Results

Run ID: ff9b2090-1e41-4d95-bc53-bf864f0761be
Baseline: cebbda1
Comparison: b40b844
Total CPUs: 7

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

Experiments with missing or malformed data

• basic_py_check

Usually, this warning means that there is no usable optimization goal data for that experiment, which could be a result of misconfiguration.

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	+0.84	[-5.72, +7.39]

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf	experiment	goal	Δ mean %	Δ mean % CI
➖	file_to_blackhole	% cpu utilization	+0.84	[-5.72, +7.39]
➖	process_agent_real_time_mode	memory utilization	+0.65	[+0.60, +0.70]
➖	tcp_syslog_to_blackhole	ingress throughput	+0.41	[+0.36, +0.47]
➖	process_agent_standard_check_with_stats	memory utilization	+0.28	[+0.23, +0.32]
➖	trace_agent_msgpack	ingress throughput	+0.01	[-0.00, +0.02]
➖	tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude	ingress throughput	+0.00	[-0.00, +0.00]
➖	uds_dogstatsd_to_api	ingress throughput	+0.00	[-0.00, +0.00]
➖	trace_agent_json	ingress throughput	-0.02	[-0.04, +0.00]
➖	process_agent_standard_check	memory utilization	-0.15	[-0.19, -0.10]
➖	uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu	% cpu utilization	-0.23	[-1.65, +1.19]
➖	otel_to_otel_logs	ingress throughput	-0.59	[-1.24, +0.06]
➖	idle	memory utilization	-0.80	[-0.84, -0.75]
➖	file_tree	memory utilization	-1.11	[-1.22, -1.00]

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".

[L3n41c]

I think there is an issue with the fact that V4FromCurrentTask(…) uses the same globalUtil.initV3orV4 sync.Once object as V3orV4FromCurrentTask(…).

If both functions are called, only one of the two will be allowed to setup its retrier.
The other will panic when calling TriggerRetry.

[L3n41c]

I’m wondering if reusing the same v3or4 field of globalUtil could be problematic.

Let’s consider the following scenario:

• A legacy piece of code calls V3orV4FromCurrentTask().
  • V3orV4FromCurrentTask() runs the globalUtil.initV3orV4 sync.Once function and setups the globalUtil.initRetryV3orV4 retrier with the initV3orV4 function.
  • V3orV4FromCurrentTask() then calls globalUtil.initRetryV3orV4.TriggerRetry() which calls initV3orV3 and sets globalUtil.v3or4 with a V3 client.
    Then,
• Another piece of code calls V4FromCurrentTask().
  • V4FromCurrentTask() calls globalUtil.initV3orV4.Do(…) but initV3orV4 has already been invoked. So, the anonymous function isn’t called and globalUtil.initRetryV4.SetupRetrier(…) isn’t called.
  • When globalUtil.initRetryV4.TriggerRetry() is then called, and it will panic because the retrier hasen’t been setup.

[kangyili]

Nice catch. I created a new v4 field
9244446

[L3n41c]

Do we plan to eventually use those new fields or have they been added for the sake of completeness and in order to have a perfect 1-1 mapping between what ECS exposes and what we decode ?

I’m wondering if we didn’t skip the decoding of unused fields on purpose to avoid consuming memory to store unused data.

[kangyili]

Yes, we will need all fields as we're going to add a new core check to collect ecs tasks. The check will use workloadmeta.

• Update Workloadmeta ECS collector to use metadata v4 endpoint #21836
• [Orchestrator] add new check to collect ecs tasks #22060

[L3n41c]

I only left minor simplification suggestions.

[kangyili]

/merge

[dd-devflow]

🚂 MergeQueue

Pull request added to the queue.

This build is going to start soon! (estimated merge in less than 27m)

Use /merge -c to cancel this operation!