-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.4k
[ACIX-835] Update testify to v1.11.1 #41981
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
Conversation
0302ad0 to
9274207
Compare
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: 8a8e3d2 Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ✅ | docker_containers_cpu | % cpu utilization | -47.75 | [-49.38, -46.13] | 1 | Logs |
Fine details of change detection per experiment
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | +0.66 | [-2.11, +3.44] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | otlp_ingest_logs | memory utilization | +0.51 | [+0.38, +0.64] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | ddot_metrics_sum_cumulativetodelta_exporter | memory utilization | +0.51 | [+0.31, +0.70] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | memory utilization | +0.41 | [+0.21, +0.61] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | ddot_metrics | memory utilization | +0.29 | [+0.12, +0.45] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_20mb_12k_contexts_20_senders | memory utilization | +0.06 | [+0.02, +0.11] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | otlp_ingest_metrics | memory utilization | +0.06 | [-0.06, +0.18] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | ddot_metrics_sum_delta | memory utilization | +0.06 | [-0.10, +0.22] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | +0.03 | [-0.01, +0.08] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | +0.03 | [-0.18, +0.24] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.02 | [-0.60, +0.63] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.01, +0.01] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.02 | [-0.62, +0.58] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.03 | [-0.63, +0.58] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | ddot_metrics_sum_cumulative | memory utilization | -0.05 | [-0.17, +0.06] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | -0.08 | [-0.11, -0.04] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | ddot_logs | memory utilization | -0.11 | [-0.16, -0.05] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.11 | [-0.72, +0.49] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | -0.20 | [-0.25, -0.15] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | -0.22 | [-0.29, -0.15] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | docker_containers_memory | memory utilization | -2.59 | [-3.02, -2.16] | 1 | Logs |
| ✅ | docker_containers_cpu | % cpu utilization | -47.75 | [-49.38, -46.13] | 1 | Logs |
Bounds Checks: ❌ Failed
| perf | experiment | bounds_check_name | replicates_passed | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ✅ | docker_containers_cpu | simple_check_run | 10/10 | |
| ❌ | docker_containers_memory | memory_usage | 8/10 | |
| ✅ | docker_containers_memory | simple_check_run | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | 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_100ms_latency | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_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 | intake_connections | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_idle | memory_usage | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | intake_connections | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory_usage | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_logs | intake_connections | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_logs | lost_bytes | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_logs | memory_usage | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | cpu_usage | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | intake_connections | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | lost_bytes | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | memory_usage | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
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_metrics_logs, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check lost_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check cpu_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle, bounds check intake_connections: 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.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
Static quality checks✅ Please find below the results from static quality gates Successful checksInfo
|
|
/merge |
|
View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.
This merge request is not mergeable according to GitHub. Common reasons include pending required checks, missing approvals, or merge conflicts — but it could also be blocked by other repository rules or settings.
The expected merge time in
|
This reverts commit 2828d50.
This reverts commit aa9e94f. ### What does this PR do? Re-apply #41981 and fix the tests that it broke. ### Motivation Same as #41981: speed up tests execution thanks to stretchr/testify#1427 that makes `require.EventuallyWithT` test the condition immediately instead of waiting for an initial delay before making the very first try. ### Describe how you validated your changes Launched a [full pipeline](https://gitlab.ddbuild.io/DataDog/datadog-agent/-/pipelines/79481153) to be sure to run all the tests and not a subset of them: #42020 (comment) ### Additional Notes The main feature we were looking for by upgrading `testify` to `v1.11.1` was the fact that that `require.EventuallyWithT` is now evaluating the condition the first time immediately instead of waiting for a `tick` delay before making the first try. This unexpectedly broke the tests that are touched in this PR. Fixing tests by adding a `time.Sleep(…)` is most probably not the smartest way of fixing them. But it restores the execution time flow of the previous versions of `testify` that happened to make the tests pass. Co-authored-by: guyarb <[email protected]>
What does this PR do?
Ensure that e2e tests are using testify v1.11.1 to benefit from stretchr/testify#1427.
Motivation
With the merge of #40182, I expected the elapsed time of containers e2e tests to be significantly reduced.
Indeed, most of the tests are just waiting with an
EventuallyWithTfor an assertion against fake intake data to become true.And, most of the time, the assertion should be true at the first try. So, the 10+s of elapsed for the tests was coming from the
EventuallyWithTinitial try.And, according to this CI page, containers e2e tests are still lasting more than 10s despite the merge of #40182.
Describe how you validated your changes
I checked the real version of testify used by the e2e tests by:
dda inv -- -e new-e2e-tests.run --targets ./tests/containers --run TestEKSSuitepstree -p $(pgrep konsole)strings /proc/80184/exe | grep testify | grep v1.1Before this PR, I had:
With this PR, I now have:
Additional Notes