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

[Backport 7.61.x] [NDM] Do not always log error on SNMP Autodiscovery unmarshal failure #32436

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: 7.61.x
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

agent-platform-auto-pr[bot]
Copy link
Contributor

Backport 8b85951 from #32429.


<!--

  • Contributors are encouraged to read our CONTRIBUTING documentation.
  • Both Contributor and Reviewer Checklists are available at https://datadoghq.dev/datadog-agent/guidelines/contributing/#pull-requests.
  • The pull request:
    • Should only fix one issue or add one feature at a time.
    • Must update the test suite for the relevant functionality.
    • Should pass all status checks before being reviewed or merged.
  • Commit titles should be prefixed with general area of pull request's change.
  • Please fill the below sections if possible with relevant information or links.
    -->

What does this PR do?

#30180 introduced a new error log on SNMP Autodiscovery config unmarshal error. We don't want to log the error when the config is not set.

Motivation

Describe how you validated your changes

<!--
Validate your changes before merge, ensuring that:

  • Your PR is tested by static / unit / integrations / e2e tests
  • Your PR description details which e2e tests cover your changes, if any
  • The PR description contains details of how you validated your changes. If you validated changes manually and not through automated tests, add context on why automated tests did not fit your changes validation.

If you want additional validation by a second person, you can ask reviewers to do it. Describe how to set up an environment for manual tests in the PR description. Manual validation is expected to happen on every commit before merge.

Any manual validation step should then map to an automated test. Manual validation should not substitute automation, minus exceptions not supported by test tooling yet.
-->

Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs

Additional Notes

<!--

  • Anything else we should know when reviewing?
  • Include benchmarking information here whenever possible.
  • Include info about alternatives that were considered and why the proposed
    version was chosen.
    -->

@agent-platform-auto-pr agent-platform-auto-pr bot added changelog/no-changelog qa/done QA done before merge and regressions are covered by tests backport bot team/container-platform The Container Platform Team short review PR is simple enough to be reviewed quickly team/ndm-core labels Dec 20, 2024
@agent-platform-auto-pr agent-platform-auto-pr bot requested review from a team as code owners December 20, 2024 18:04
@agent-platform-auto-pr agent-platform-auto-pr bot requested review from TCheruy and removed request for a team December 20, 2024 18:04
@agent-platform-auto-pr
Copy link
Contributor Author

Test changes on VM

Use this command from test-infra-definitions to manually test this PR changes on a VM:

inv create-vm --pipeline-id=51671751 --os-family=ubuntu

Note: This applies to commit 87a03f6

Copy link

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Metrics dashboard
Target profiles
Run ID: 9d4618c0-7106-487f-9ef9-59e109fd8f19

Baseline: 9017a87
Comparison: 87a03f6
Diff

Optimization Goals: ❌ Regression(s) detected

perf experiment goal Δ mean % Δ mean % CI trials links
basic_py_check % cpu utilization +5.11 [+1.19, +9.03] 1 Logs

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf experiment goal Δ mean % Δ mean % CI trials links
basic_py_check % cpu utilization +5.11 [+1.19, +9.03] 1 Logs
pycheck_lots_of_tags % cpu utilization +1.99 [-1.50, +5.48] 1 Logs
file_tree memory utilization +0.42 [+0.27, +0.57] 1 Logs
otel_to_otel_logs ingress throughput +0.24 [-0.43, +0.91] 1 Logs
quality_gate_idle memory utilization +0.12 [+0.07, +0.16] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency egress throughput +0.12 [-0.73, +0.97] 1 Logs
uds_dogstatsd_to_api ingress throughput +0.02 [-0.06, +0.09] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency egress throughput +0.01 [-0.62, +0.63] 1 Logs
tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude ingress throughput +0.00 [-0.01, +0.01] 1 Logs
tcp_syslog_to_blackhole ingress throughput -0.02 [-0.08, +0.03] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load egress throughput -0.03 [-0.49, +0.43] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency egress throughput -0.04 [-0.80, +0.73] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency egress throughput -0.11 [-0.90, +0.69] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency egress throughput -0.22 [-0.99, +0.55] 1 Logs
quality_gate_logs % cpu utilization -0.25 [-3.20, +2.69] 1 Logs
quality_gate_idle_all_features memory utilization -2.07 [-2.19, -1.94] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu % cpu utilization -2.88 [-3.60, -2.17] 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:

  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_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.
  • 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.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
backport bot changelog/no-changelog qa/done QA done before merge and regressions are covered by tests short review PR is simple enough to be reviewed quickly team/container-platform The Container Platform Team team/ndm-core
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants