Add fips flavor container image published on main builds #32364
Conversation
jeremy-hanna
added
changelog/no-changelog
qa/no-code-change
github-actions
bot
added
the
short review
|
[Fast Unit Tests Report] On pipeline 51494638 (CI Visibility). The following jobs did not run any unit tests: Jobs:
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 |
Uncompressed package size comparisonComparison with ancestor Diff per package
Decision✅ Passed |
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: 23a0380 Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | +0.95 | [+0.89, +1.02] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | +0.58 | [-2.63, +3.80] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.58 | [-0.21, +1.37] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | +0.48 | [+0.33, +0.62] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.04 | [-0.73, +0.82] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | +0.01 | [-0.11, +0.13] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.01, +0.01] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | egress throughput | -0.02 | [-0.88, +0.83] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | -0.04 | [-0.12, +0.05] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.05 | [-0.96, +0.85] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | -0.07 | [-0.11, -0.03] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | egress throughput | -0.10 | [-0.92, +0.72] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | egress throughput | -0.14 | [-0.61, +0.33] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.14 | [-0.78, +0.50] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.55 | [-1.31, +0.21] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | -0.80 | [-1.48, -0.12] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | otel_to_otel_logs | ingress throughput | -2.04 | [-2.72, -1.36] | 1 | Logs |
Bounds Checks: ❌ Failed
| perf | experiment | bounds_check_name | replicates_passed | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ❌ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | lost_bytes | 9/10 | |
| ❌ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | lost_bytes | 9/10 | |
| ❌ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory_usage | 9/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | memory_usage | 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_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
❌ Failed. Some Quality Gates were violated.
- 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_all_features, bounds check memory_usage: 9/10 replicas passed. Failed 1 which is > 0. Gate FAILED.
- quality_gate_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
What does this PR do?
The other dev containers are set to deploy only on manual triggers but the integrations team uses these images in their e2e tests so we should publish them on main merges.
Motivation
Describe how you validated your changes
Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
Additional Notes