-
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
Remove files in pkg/util #32450
Remove files in pkg/util #32450
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=51901404 --os-family=ubuntu Note: This applies to commit f8a3e2c |
Uncompressed package size comparisonComparison with ancestor Diff per package
Decision |
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: 055764b Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | +2.28 | [-0.98, +5.55] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | +0.79 | [+0.10, +1.47] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | +0.52 | [+0.47, +0.58] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | +0.22 | [+0.19, +0.26] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | +0.15 | [+0.07, +0.23] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.07 | [-0.71, +0.85] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | egress throughput | +0.07 | [-0.80, +0.93] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.06 | [-0.58, +0.70] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.04 | [-0.83, +0.91] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.03 | [-0.72, +0.78] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.02, +0.01] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.13, +0.10] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | egress throughput | -0.06 | [-0.95, +0.83] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.18 | [-0.96, +0.59] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | -0.25 | [-0.39, -0.12] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | egress throughput | -0.43 | [-0.90, +0.04] | 1 | Logs |
Bounds Checks: ❌ Failed
perf | experiment | bounds_check_name | replicates_passed | links |
---|---|---|---|---|
❌ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | lost_bytes | 9/10 | |
❌ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | lost_bytes | 9/10 | |
❌ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | 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 | 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 | memory_usage | 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.
LGTM for @DataDog/platform-integrations owned files. (pkg/util/cloudproviders/cloudfoundry/*
)
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.
LGTM for @DataDog/container-platform 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.
The change looks good and it adds clarity.
IMO the PR should also update the CODEOWNERS file to define owner of the new packages.
Go Package Import DifferencesBaseline: 055764b
|
/merge |
Devflow running:
|
I would advise reviewing commit by commit. Each commit basically moves one file.
What does this PR do?
Remove every file in
pkg/util
.Motivation
#32174 has shown that
pkg/util
is a mess and a bad concept, in particular considering the way Go's dead code elimination works.Describe how you validated your changes
There should be no functional change, just moving things around and renaming.
CI should be enough.
Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
Additional Notes
I created new packages and moved some functions to existing packages when it made sense.
I also deleted functions when they were actually unused.