Skip to content

add timeout param to webhook and set it for cws #37697

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jun 12, 2025
Merged

add timeout param to webhook and set it for cws #37697

merged 3 commits into from
Jun 12, 2025

Conversation

safchain
Copy link
Contributor

@safchain safchain commented Jun 5, 2025

What does this PR do?

This PR updates the webhook interface to add a Timeout method which allows to specify per webhook the timeout. It makes use of it for the cws-instrumentation webhook and set it to 2sec by default.

Motivation

Describe how you validated your changes

Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs

Additional Notes

@github-actions github-actions bot added team/container-platform The Container Platform Team medium review PR review might take time labels Jun 5, 2025
@cit-pr-commenter cit-pr-commenter
Copy link

cit-pr-commenter bot commented Jun 5, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Metrics dashboard
Target profiles
Run ID: cc92bca8-93a6-484e-aa19-aa755dcdc99b

Baseline: 9d6ecd4
Comparison: c59ed11
Diff

Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf experiment goal Δ mean % Δ mean % CI trials links
➖ quality_gate_logs % cpu utilization +3.50 [+0.68, +6.32] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖ docker_containers_memory memory utilization +1.24 [+1.18, +1.30] 1 Logs
➖ docker_containers_cpu % cpu utilization +1.16 [-1.84, +4.16] 1 Logs
➖ otlp_ingest_metrics memory utilization +0.31 [+0.15, +0.48] 1 Logs
➖ file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency egress throughput +0.08 [-0.53, +0.69] 1 Logs
➖ file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency egress throughput +0.08 [-0.53, +0.69] 1 Logs
➖ file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency egress throughput +0.04 [-0.58, +0.66] 1 Logs
➖ quality_gate_idle memory utilization +0.02 [-0.05, +0.09] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖ tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude ingress throughput +0.00 [-0.01, +0.02] 1 Logs
➖ file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 egress throughput +0.00 [-0.61, +0.61] 1 Logs
➖ file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 egress throughput -0.00 [-0.60, +0.59] 1 Logs
➖ uds_dogstatsd_to_api ingress throughput -0.01 [-0.29, +0.27] 1 Logs
➖ file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load egress throughput -0.01 [-0.24, +0.23] 1 Logs
➖ file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency egress throughput -0.01 [-0.61, +0.60] 1 Logs
➖ file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency egress throughput -0.02 [-0.63, +0.58] 1 Logs
➖ otlp_ingest_logs memory utilization -0.03 [-0.16, +0.10] 1 Logs
➖ ddot_metrics memory utilization -0.05 [-0.17, +0.07] 1 Logs
➖ ddot_logs memory utilization -0.06 [-0.20, +0.08] 1 Logs
➖ quality_gate_idle_all_features memory utilization -0.59 [-0.69, -0.48] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖ tcp_syslog_to_blackhole ingress throughput -0.63 [-0.68, -0.57] 1 Logs
➖ uds_dogstatsd_20mb_12k_contexts_20_senders memory utilization -0.73 [-0.80, -0.66] 1 Logs
➖ file_tree memory utilization -1.10 [-1.26, -0.93] 1 Logs
➖ uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu % cpu utilization -1.45 [-2.33, -0.58] 1 Logs

Bounds Checks: ✅ Passed

perf experiment bounds_check_name replicates_passed links
✅ docker_containers_cpu simple_check_run 10/10
✅ docker_containers_memory memory_usage 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:

  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 lost_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_logs, 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_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 intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.

@github-actions github-actions bot added long review PR is complex, plan time to review it and removed medium review PR review might take time labels Jun 6, 2025
@agent-platform-auto-pr
Copy link
Contributor

agent-platform-auto-pr bot commented Jun 6, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Static quality checks

✅ Please find below the results from static quality gates
Comparison made with ancestor 9d6ecd4

Successful checks

Info

Quality gate Delta On disk size (MiB) Delta On wire size (MiB)
✅ agent_deb_amd64 $${+0}$$ $${696.06}$$ < $${752.99}$$ $${-0.02}$$ $${176.03}$$ < $${187.44}$$
✅ agent_deb_amd64_fips $${-0}$$ $${694.29}$$ < $${751.36}$$ $${+0}$$ $${175.51}$$ < $${187.06}$$
✅ agent_heroku_amd64 $${0}$$ $${358.56}$$ < $${369.68}$$ $${-0}$$ $${96.5}$$ < $${99.55}$$
✅ agent_msi $${+0}$$ $${959.88}$$ < $${987.01}$$ $${+0.02}$$ $${146.45}$$ < $${150.72}$$
✅ agent_rpm_amd64 $${+0}$$ $${696.05}$$ < $${752.98}$$ $${-0.04}$$ $${177.55}$$ < $${190.03}$$
✅ agent_rpm_amd64_fips $${-0}$$ $${694.28}$$ < $${751.35}$$ $${-0.06}$$ $${177.38}$$ < $${189.81}$$
✅ agent_rpm_arm64 $${-0}$$ $${686.0}$$ < $${739.42}$$ $${+0.05}$$ $${161.07}$$ < $${171.23}$$
✅ agent_rpm_arm64_fips $${+0}$$ $${684.35}$$ < $${737.91}$$ $${-0.05}$$ $${160.06}$$ < $${170.22}$$
✅ agent_suse_amd64 $${+0}$$ $${696.05}$$ < $${752.98}$$ $${-0.04}$$ $${177.55}$$ < $${190.03}$$
✅ agent_suse_amd64_fips $${-0}$$ $${694.28}$$ < $${751.35}$$ $${-0.06}$$ $${177.38}$$ < $${189.81}$$
✅ agent_suse_arm64 $${-0}$$ $${686.0}$$ < $${739.42}$$ $${+0.05}$$ $${161.07}$$ < $${171.23}$$
✅ agent_suse_arm64_fips $${+0}$$ $${684.35}$$ < $${737.91}$$ $${-0.05}$$ $${160.06}$$ < $${170.22}$$
✅ docker_agent_amd64 $${+0}$$ $${779.85}$$ < $${849.39}$$ $${-0}$$ $${268.58}$$ < $${288.34}$$
✅ docker_agent_arm64 $${-0}$$ $${793.25}$$ < $${858.97}$$ $${-0.01}$$ $${255.98}$$ < $${274.36}$$
✅ docker_agent_jmx_amd64 $${+0}$$ $${779.85}$$ < $${849.39}$$ $${-0}$$ $${268.58}$$ < $${288.34}$$
✅ docker_agent_jmx_arm64 $${-0}$$ $${793.25}$$ < $${858.97}$$ $${-0.01}$$ $${255.98}$$ < $${274.36}$$
✅ docker_agent_windows1809 $${+0}$$ $${779.85}$$ < $${849.39}$$ $${-0}$$ $${268.58}$$ < $${288.34}$$
✅ docker_agent_windows1809_core $${+0}$$ $${779.85}$$ < $${849.39}$$ $${-0}$$ $${268.58}$$ < $${288.34}$$
✅ docker_agent_windows1809_core_jmx $${+0}$$ $${779.85}$$ < $${849.39}$$ $${-0}$$ $${268.58}$$ < $${288.34}$$
✅ docker_agent_windows1809_jmx $${+0}$$ $${779.85}$$ < $${849.39}$$ $${-0}$$ $${268.58}$$ < $${288.34}$$
✅ docker_agent_windows2022 $${+0}$$ $${779.85}$$ < $${849.39}$$ $${-0}$$ $${268.58}$$ < $${288.34}$$
✅ docker_agent_windows2022_core $${+0}$$ $${779.85}$$ < $${849.39}$$ $${-0}$$ $${268.58}$$ < $${288.34}$$
✅ docker_agent_windows2022_core_jmx $${+0}$$ $${779.85}$$ < $${849.39}$$ $${-0}$$ $${268.58}$$ < $${288.34}$$
✅ docker_agent_windows2022_jmx $${+0}$$ $${779.85}$$ < $${849.39}$$ $${-0}$$ $${268.58}$$ < $${288.34}$$
✅ docker_cluster_agent_amd64 $${+0}$$ $${259.22}$$ < $${259.73}$$ $${+0.01}$$ $${102.91}$$ < $${103.68}$$
✅ docker_cluster_agent_arm64 $${+0}$$ $${273.65}$$ < $${274.24}$$ $${+0}$$ $${97.59}$$ < $${98.45}$$
✅ docker_cws_instrumentation_amd64 $${-0}$$ $${7.08}$$ < $${7.12}$$ $${+0}$$ $${2.95}$$ < $${3.29}$$
✅ docker_cws_instrumentation_arm64 $${-0}$$ $${6.69}$$ < $${6.92}$$ $${-0}$$ $${2.7}$$ < $${3.07}$$
✅ docker_dogstatsd_amd64 $${0}$$ $${38.93}$$ < $${39.57}$$ $${-0}$$ $${14.95}$$ < $${15.76}$$
✅ docker_dogstatsd_arm64 $${0}$$ $${37.52}$$ < $${38.2}$$ $${-0}$$ $${13.96}$$ < $${14.83}$$
✅ dogstatsd_deb_amd64 $${0}$$ $${30.61}$$ < $${31.52}$$ $${-0}$$ $${8.03}$$ < $${8.97}$$
✅ dogstatsd_deb_arm64 $${0}$$ $${29.16}$$ < $${30.08}$$ $${-0}$$ $${6.97}$$ < $${7.92}$$
✅ dogstatsd_rpm_amd64 $${0}$$ $${30.61}$$ < $${31.52}$$ $${-0}$$ $${8.04}$$ < $${8.98}$$
✅ dogstatsd_suse_amd64 $${0}$$ $${30.61}$$ < $${31.52}$$ $${-0}$$ $${8.04}$$ < $${8.98}$$
✅ iot_agent_deb_amd64 $${0}$$ $${50.49}$$ < $${60.17}$$ $${+0}$$ $${12.85}$$ < $${15.82}$$
✅ iot_agent_deb_arm64 $${0}$$ $${47.94}$$ < $${56.94}$$ $${+0}$$ $${11.15}$$ < $${13.86}$$
✅ iot_agent_deb_armhf $${0}$$ $${47.52}$$ < $${56.41}$$ $${-0}$$ $${11.2}$$ < $${13.86}$$
✅ iot_agent_rpm_amd64 $${0}$$ $${50.49}$$ < $${60.18}$$ $${-0}$$ $${12.87}$$ < $${15.84}$$
✅ iot_agent_rpm_arm64 $${0}$$ $${47.94}$$ < $${56.94}$$ $${-0}$$ $${11.16}$$ < $${13.76}$$
✅ iot_agent_suse_amd64 $${0}$$ $${50.49}$$ < $${60.18}$$ $${-0}$$ $${12.87}$$ < $${15.84}$$

@safchain safchain marked this pull request as ready for review June 10, 2025 15:37
@safchain safchain requested review from a team as code owners June 10, 2025 15:37
@safchain safchain added the ask-review Ask required teams to review this PR label Jun 11, 2025
L3n41c
L3n41c approved these changes Jun 11, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@L3n41c L3n41c left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM for the file owned by @DataDog/container-integrations.

@safchain safchain added qa/rc-required Only for a PR that requires validation on the Release Candidate and removed qa/skip-qa labels Jun 12, 2025
@wdhif
Copy link
Member

wdhif commented Jun 12, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Hello 👋 Thanks! The PR looks good to me.
Could you add a test that showcases the change at the Admission Controller level? You can use the following command for verification:

kubectl describe mutatingwebhookconfigurations.admissionregistration.k8s.io datadog-webhook

@safchain
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hello 👋 Thanks! The PR looks good to me. Could you add a test that showcases the change at the Admission Controller level? You can use the following command for verification:

kubectl describe mutatingwebhookconfigurations.admissionregistration.k8s.io datadog-webhook

Not exactly sure what you mean as I'm not super familiar with all the aspect of this. I modified the already existing unit tests check the output of the template generation. I specifically modified the cws ones to validate the 2sec timeout.

stanistan
stanistan approved these changes Jun 12, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@stanistan stanistan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM for the autoinstrumentation webhook on behalf of @DataDog/injection-platform.

@wdhif
Copy link
Member

wdhif commented Jun 12, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Hello 👋 Thanks! The PR looks good to me. Could you add a test that showcases the change at the Admission Controller level? You can use the following command for verification:

kubectl describe mutatingwebhookconfigurations.admissionregistration.k8s.io datadog-webhook

Not exactly sure what you mean as I'm not super familiar with all the aspect of this. I modified the already existing unit tests check the output of the template generation. I specifically modified the cws ones to validate the 2sec timeout.

As the E2E tests would not check the timeouts for the Admission Controller webhooks, I wanted to make sure that the changes were validated.

I've checked quickly by building and deploying the Agent and testing using the following command:
kubectl describe mutatingwebhookconfigurations.admissionregistration.k8s.io datadog-webhook

We can see here that everything looks good 👍

➜ kubectl describe mutatingwebhookconfigurations.admissionregistration.k8s.io datadog-webhook
  Name:            datadog.webhook.agent.config
  Timeout Seconds:  10

  Name:            datadog.webhook.standard.tags
  Timeout Seconds:  10

  Name:            datadog.webhook.lib.injection
  Timeout Seconds:  10

  Name:            datadog.webhook.cws.pod.instrumentation
  Timeout Seconds:  2
  
  Name:            datadog.webhook.cws.exec.instrumentation
  Timeout Seconds:  2

Approved 👍

@safchain
Copy link
Contributor Author

/merge

@dd-devflow
Copy link

dd-devflow bot commented Jun 12, 2025 •
edited
Loading

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.

2025-06-12 17:04:46 UTC ℹ️ Start processing command /merge

2025-06-12 17:04:56 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: pull request added to the queue

The expected merge time in main is approximately 52m (p90).

2025-06-12 17:23:49 UTC ❌ MergeQueue: The build pipeline contains failing jobs for this merge request

Build pipeline has failing jobs for aad3758:

⚠️ Do NOT retry failed jobs directly (why?).

What to do next?

  • Investigate the failures and when ready, re-add your pull request to the queue!
  • If your PR checks are green, try to rebase/merge. It might be because the CI run is a bit old.
  • Any question, go check the FAQ.
Details

Since those jobs are not marked as being allowed to fail, the pipeline will most likely fail.
Therefore, and to allow other builds to be processed, this merge request has been rejected and the pipeline got canceled.

@paulcacheux
Copy link
Contributor

/merge

@dd-devflow
Copy link

dd-devflow bot commented Jun 12, 2025 •
edited
Loading

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.

2025-06-12 17:26:54 UTC ℹ️ Start processing command /merge

2025-06-12 17:27:07 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: pull request added to the queue

The expected merge time in main is approximately 52m (p90).

2025-06-12 18:03:02 UTC ❌ MergeQueue: The build pipeline contains failing jobs for this merge request

Build pipeline has failing jobs for 3d7fdda:

⚠️ Do NOT retry failed jobs directly (why?).

What to do next?

  • Investigate the failures and when ready, re-add your pull request to the queue!
  • If your PR checks are green, try to rebase/merge. It might be because the CI run is a bit old.
  • Any question, go check the FAQ.
Details

Since those jobs are not marked as being allowed to fail, the pipeline will most likely fail.
Therefore, and to allow other builds to be processed, this merge request has been rejected and the pipeline got canceled.

@paulcacheux
Copy link
Contributor

/merge

@dd-devflow
Copy link

dd-devflow bot commented Jun 12, 2025 •
edited
Loading

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.

2025-06-12 19:33:52 UTC ℹ️ Start processing command /merge

2025-06-12 19:34:04 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: pull request added to the queue

The expected merge time in main is approximately 53m (p90).

2025-06-12 20:17:24 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: This merge request was merged

@dd-mergequeue dd-mergequeue bot merged commit 37b769e into main Jun 12, 2025
280 of 282 checks passed
@dd-mergequeue dd-mergequeue bot deleted the safchain/ad-k8s branch June 12, 2025 20:17
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the 7.68.0 milestone Jun 12, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@lebauce lebauce lebauce approved these changes

@stanistan stanistan stanistan approved these changes

@hush-hush hush-hush hush-hush approved these changes

@spikat spikat spikat approved these changes

@L3n41c L3n41c L3n41c approved these changes

@wdhif wdhif wdhif approved these changes

@betterengineering betterengineering Awaiting requested review from betterengineering betterengineering is a code owner automatically assigned from DataDog/injection-platform

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
ask-review Ask required teams to review this PR changelog/no-changelog long review PR is complex, plan time to review it qa/rc-required Only for a PR that requires validation on the Release Candidate team/agent-security team/container-platform The Container Platform Team
Projects
None yet
Milestone
7.68.0
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
8 participants
@safchain @wdhif @paulcacheux @lebauce @stanistan @hush-hush @spikat @L3n41c