Skip to content
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

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Dec 20, 2024

Conversation

pducolin
Copy link
Contributor

What does this PR do?

  • Rename environments docs.go to environments.go
  • Move provisioners to dedicated package

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 in e2e and in environments causes circular dependencies.

Describe how you validated your changes

Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs

Additional Notes

@pducolin pducolin added changelog/no-changelog qa/no-code-change No code change in Agent code requiring validation labels Dec 19, 2024
@pducolin pducolin requested review from a team as code owners December 19, 2024 16:24
@agent-platform-auto-pr
Copy link
Contributor

agent-platform-auto-pr bot commented Dec 19, 2024

Test changes on VM

Use 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

@pducolin pducolin force-pushed the pducolin/ADXT-354-extract-agent-logs-config branch from 11fbe07 to e0d46c4 Compare December 19, 2024 16:47
@pducolin
Copy link
Contributor Author

pducolin commented Dec 19, 2024

Force pushed a rebase on main to fix conflicts

@github-actions github-actions bot added the long review PR is complex, plan time to review it label Dec 19, 2024
Copy link
Member

@songy23 songy23 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

approval for OTel

@songy23 songy23 removed the request for review from dinooliva December 19, 2024 17:12
Copy link

cit-pr-commenter bot commented Dec 19, 2024

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Metrics dashboard
Target profiles
Run ID: 43eccc9a-c62c-4f81-8fbe-bb837420c447

Baseline: 21f4c0e
Comparison: b275caa
Diff

Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected

Fine details of change detection per experiment

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:

  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".

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.

Copy link
Contributor

@jeremy-hanna jeremy-hanna left a 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

Copy link
Contributor

@ajgajg1134 ajgajg1134 left a 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!

@pducolin
Copy link
Contributor Author

/merge

@dd-devflow
Copy link

dd-devflow bot commented Dec 20, 2024

Devflow running: /merge

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.


2024-12-20 10:44:16 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: pull request added to the queue

The median merge time in main is 33m.


2024-12-20 11:17:24 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: This merge request was merged

@dd-mergequeue dd-mergequeue bot merged commit c60d01f into main Dec 20, 2024
314 checks passed
@dd-mergequeue dd-mergequeue bot deleted the pducolin/ADXT-354-extract-agent-logs-config branch December 20, 2024 11:17
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the 7.62.0 milestone Dec 20, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
changelog/no-changelog long review PR is complex, plan time to review it qa/no-code-change No code change in Agent code requiring validation
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.