Fix the warning mode in the create-rc-pr workflow

[FlorentClarret]

What does this PR do?

Fix the warning mode in the create-rc-pr workflow

Motivation

The warning option is never propagated to the second workflow, so it always tries to create a PR instead of sending a message if needed

Additional Notes

Tested here, the -w option is there on a manual workflow

Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs

Describe how to test/QA your changes

[FlorentClarret]

/merge

[dd-devflow]

🚂 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.
Note: if you pushed new commits since the last approval, you may need additional approval.
You can remove it from the waiting list with /remove command.

Use /merge -c to cancel this operation!

[agent-platform-auto-pr]

[Fast Unit Tests Report]

On pipeline 43230552 (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

[dd-devflow]

🚂 MergeQueue: pull request added to the queue

The median merge time in main is 22m.

Use /merge -c to cancel this operation!

[pr-commenter]

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Run ID: d605302c-39d7-4e5a-86ea-2c6a501de362 Metrics dashboard Target profiles

Baseline: 404da90
Comparison: e38f6a7

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	+2.87	[-10.02, +15.75]	Logs
➖	pycheck_lots_of_tags	% cpu utilization	+1.21	[-1.26, +3.68]	Logs
➖	file_tree	memory utilization	+0.47	[+0.40, +0.54]	Logs
➖	idle	memory utilization	+0.43	[+0.40, +0.46]	Logs
➖	uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu	% cpu utilization	+0.03	[-0.92, +0.99]	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
➖	basic_py_check	% cpu utilization	-0.27	[-2.95, +2.41]	Logs
➖	otel_to_otel_logs	ingress throughput	-0.96	[-1.77, -0.15]	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".