-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
Add support for secrets when loading additional_endpoints from env vars #37558
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: 0b2a5b1 Optimization Goals: ❌ Regression(s) detected
|
perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
❌ | docker_containers_cpu | % cpu utilization | +7.02 | [+3.85, +10.19] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | +0.43 | [+0.28, +0.57] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_20mb_12k_contexts_20_senders | memory utilization | +0.35 | [+0.31, +0.39] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | +0.06 | [+0.00, +0.11] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.04 | [-0.58, +0.65] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.03 | [-0.58, +0.65] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.01 | [-0.65, +0.68] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.01 | [-0.57, +0.60] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | +0.01 | [-0.25, +0.27] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.03, +0.02] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | otlp_ingest_metrics | memory utilization | -0.01 | [-0.18, +0.16] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | egress throughput | -0.03 | [-0.63, +0.58] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | egress throughput | -0.04 | [-0.67, +0.60] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | egress throughput | -0.04 | [-0.28, +0.20] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.06 | [-0.64, +0.53] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | -0.21 | [-2.98, +2.57] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | -0.29 | [-0.36, -0.23] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | ddot_logs | memory utilization | -0.37 | [-0.51, -0.24] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | otlp_ingest_logs | memory utilization | -0.39 | [-0.51, -0.26] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | ddot_metrics | memory utilization | -0.44 | [-0.56, -0.33] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | docker_containers_memory | memory utilization | -0.63 | [-0.68, -0.58] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | -1.06 | [-1.16, -0.97] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | -2.57 | [-3.47, -1.68] | 1 | Logs |
Bounds Checks: ❌ Failed
perf | experiment | bounds_check_name | replicates_passed | links |
---|---|---|---|---|
❌ | docker_containers_memory | memory_usage | 0/10 | |
✅ | docker_containers_cpu | simple_check_run | 10/10 | |
✅ | 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_0ms_latency_http1 | lost_bytes | 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 | 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 | 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 |
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 intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check lost_bytes: 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.
Static quality checks✅ Please find below the results from static quality gates Successful checksInfo
|
2bb982c
to
d4fbc63
Compare
d4fbc63
to
f66c8a5
Compare
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.
hi @hush-hush just a minor typo but approved
releasenotes/notes/support-for-secrets-additional-endpoints-from-env-var-85c903770a231df4.yaml
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
…om-env-var-85c903770a231df4.yaml Co-authored-by: Alicia Scott <aliciascott@users.noreply.github.com>
config.ParseEnvAsSlice(prefix+"additional_endpoints", func(in string) []interface{} { | ||
var mappings []interface{} | ||
if err := json.Unmarshal([]byte(in), &mappings); err != nil { | ||
log.Errorf(`"%s" can not be parsed: %v`, prefix+"additional_endpoints", err) | ||
} | ||
return mappings | ||
}) |
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.
nit + personal opinion + no-blocker: should we make it into a helper function, same as enableJSONParsingFromEnv
? I know. It is used only in one place, but it would make the file more homogeneous
config.BindEnv("apm_config.additional_endpoints", "DD_APM_ADDITIONAL_ENDPOINTS") | ||
enableJSONParsingFromEnv(config, "apm_config.additional_endpoints") | ||
config.BindEnv("apm_config.replace_tags", "DD_APM_REPLACE_TAGS") |
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.
question: Wondering if it would make more sense to have a wrapper around BindEnv
to have an options argument to indicate if we should enable JSON parsing per key?
config.BindEnv("apm_config.additional_endpoints", "DD_APM_ADDITIONAL_ENDPOINTS", nested_json_map)
What does this PR do?
Add support for secrets when loading
additional_endpoints
from env vars as JSON payload.Overall we're moving the env vars support within the config from each module. The code should not have custom cases depending on the source of a setting, once loaded they any source should produce the same types in the configuration. This also allow us to apply post-processing logic in all cases (like secrets resolution).
Motivation
Describe how you validated your changes
Set additional endpoints as through the env vars as JSON payload.
Env vars to test per team:
agent-metrics-logs:
logs_config.additional_endpoints
agent-apm:
apm_config.profiling_additional_endpoints
apm_config.additional_endpoints
apm_config.debugger_additional_endpoints
debugger_diagnostics_additional_endpoints
apm_config.symdb_additional_endpoints
apm_config.telemetry.additional_endpoints
ol_proxy_config.additional_endpoints
evp_proxy_config.additional_endpoints
container-app:
orchestrator_explorer.orchestrator_additional_endpoints
process_config.orchestrator_additional_endpoints
process-agent:
process_config.additional_endpoints
process_config.events_additional_endpoints
OTEL Agent team should validate that their special cases for
logs_config.additional_endpoints
still works as expected. The change frominterface{}
tostring
as the key for the map should not break anything since we're serializing a struct that can be loaded withmapstructure
(ie: map[string]interface{}).