-
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
[CTK-4175] Add token authentication to Process Agent endpoints #31940
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
[CTK-4175] Add token authentication to Process Agent endpoints #31940
Conversation
Test changes on VMUse this command from test-infra-definitions to manually test this PR changes on a VM: inv aws.create-vm --pipeline-id=51505862 --os-family=ubuntu Note: This applies to commit 71cd2e2 |
Package size comparisonComparison with ancestor Diff per package
Decision |
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: 26052f9 Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | +1.44 | [+1.35, +1.52] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | +1.11 | [+0.39, +1.83] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | +0.55 | [+0.41, +0.69] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | egress throughput | +0.36 | [-0.10, +0.83] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.34 | [-0.42, +1.10] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.02 | [-0.74, +0.77] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.10, +0.10] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | egress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.84, +0.84] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.01, +0.01] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.85, +0.84] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | otel_to_otel_logs | ingress throughput | -0.03 | [-0.72, +0.67] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | -0.04 | [-0.08, -0.00] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | egress throughput | -0.07 | [-0.89, +0.74] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.10 | [-0.73, +0.53] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.33 | [-1.11, +0.45] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | -0.81 | [-0.95, -0.68] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | -1.32 | [-4.20, +1.56] | 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_0ms_latency_http1 | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | 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_logs, bounds check lost_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
2689611
to
13af369
Compare
6aeed13
to
ea6130a
Compare
Uncompressed package size comparisonComparison with ancestor Diff per package
Decision |
ea6130a
to
d29bba9
Compare
d29bba9
to
d701e90
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks a lot for the work you've done on it !
I left a few comments on details in unit tests.
The implementation part looks good to me 🎉
/merge |
Devflow running:
|
/remove |
Devflow running:
|
What does this PR do?
This PR updates the process agent API server to require an auth token for any request.
Motivation
Describe how you validated your changes
Added unit tests and there are many existing tests that use the subcommands.
Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
Additional Notes