-
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
[e2e][refactoring] 🚚 move provisioners to dedicated package #32403
[e2e][refactoring] 🚚 move provisioners to dedicated package #32403
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=51639458 --os-family=ubuntu Note: This applies to commit b275caa |
11fbe07
to
e0d46c4
Compare
Force pushed a rebase on main to fix conflicts |
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.
approval for OTel
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: 21f4c0e Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | +0.94 | [+0.26, +1.62] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | egress throughput | +0.27 | [-0.19, +0.73] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.22 | [-0.57, +1.01] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | egress throughput | +0.02 | [-0.85, +0.90] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.01, +0.01] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.12, +0.12] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.05 | [-0.93, +0.83] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | egress throughput | -0.05 | [-0.94, +0.84] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.06 | [-0.81, +0.68] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.07 | [-0.71, +0.58] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | -0.16 | [-0.19, -0.13] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.17 | [-0.94, +0.60] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | otel_to_otel_logs | ingress throughput | -0.22 | [-0.88, +0.44] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | -0.22 | [-0.28, -0.16] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | -0.24 | [-0.33, -0.16] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | -0.35 | [-0.48, -0.22] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | -1.95 | [-5.18, +1.27] | 1 | Logs |
Bounds Checks: ❌ Failed
perf | experiment | bounds_check_name | replicates_passed | links |
---|---|---|---|---|
❌ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | lost_bytes | 9/10 | |
✅ | 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 | 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 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.
- quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
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.
👍 for ASC owned files
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.
looks good for the apm related changes!
/merge |
Devflow running:
|
What does this PR do?
docs.go
toenvironments.go
Motivation
Part 1 of a refactoring to allow environments to have a
Diagnosable
interface, so that we can dump agent logs and config at test failure time. Currently having provisioners ine2e
and inenvironments
causes circular dependencies.Describe how you validated your changes
Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
Additional Notes