-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
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
discovery: update legacy name field when using container tags #31574
discovery: update legacy name field when using container tags #31574
Conversation
29edf2f
to
ae643c4
Compare
9f8cb3a
to
d4bb079
Compare
d4bb079
to
2247234
Compare
Test changes on VMUse this command from test-infra-definitions to manually test this PR changes on a VM: inv create-vm --pipeline-id=50117526 --os-family=ubuntu Note: This applies to commit 3866c31 |
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: 7bf22e7 Optimization Goals: ❌ Significant changes detected
|
perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
❌ | basic_py_check | % cpu utilization | +6.05 | [+1.97, +10.13] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | +2.16 | [-0.80, +5.13] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | +0.91 | [+0.17, +1.64] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | egress throughput | +0.35 | [-0.11, +0.81] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.19 | [-0.58, +0.96] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.13 | [-0.65, +0.91] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | +0.12 | [-0.02, +0.25] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | otel_to_otel_logs | ingress throughput | +0.10 | [-0.56, +0.76] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.03 | [-0.77, +0.82] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | +0.02 | [-0.09, +0.12] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.01, +0.01] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.73, +0.71] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.64, +0.61] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | -0.81 | [-0.87, -0.76] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | -1.17 | [-1.22, -1.12] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | pycheck_lots_of_tags | % cpu utilization | -2.06 | [-5.52, +1.40] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | -2.46 | [-2.61, -2.31] | 1 | Logs |
Bounds Checks: ✅ Passed
perf | experiment | bounds_check_name | replicates_passed | links |
---|---|---|---|---|
✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
✅ | quality_gate_idle | memory_usage | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
✅ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory_usage | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
✅ | quality_gate_logs | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
✅ | quality_gate_logs | memory_usage | 10/10 |
Explanation
Confidence level: 90.00%
Effect size tolerance: |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%
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
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".
CI Pass/Fail Decision
✅ Passed. All Quality Gates passed.
- quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check lost_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
/merge |
Devflow running:
|
What does this PR do?
This PR updates the legacy service name field when using container tags for the generated service name.
Motivation
Keep legacy and new fields consistent.
Describe how to test/QA your changes
Covered by automated test.
Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
Additional Notes