apm: fix span event msgpk deserialization, add test #35033
Conversation
github-actions
bot
added
medium review
ajgajg1134
added
the
qa/done
| --- | ||
| fixes: | ||
| - | | ||
| APM: fix issue where new span field for span events wasn't properly serialized when received as message pack. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| APM: fix issue where new span field for span events wasn't properly serialized when received as message pack. | |
| APM: fix issue where a new span field for span events wasn't properly serialized when received as a message pack. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks! I updated the release note a bit from this suggestion as I realized when looking it up that message pack is written as MessagePack (as it's the name of the format)
|
/merge |
|
View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.
This merge request is not mergeable yet, because of pending checks/missing approvals. It will be added to the queue as soon as checks pass and/or get approvals.
The expected merge time in
|
Uncompressed package size comparisonComparison with ancestor Size reduction summary
Diff per package
Decision✅ Passed |
Test changes on VMUse this command from test-infra-definitions to manually test this PR changes on a VM: dda inv aws.create-vm --pipeline-id=58491095 --os-family=ubuntuNote: This applies to commit bcf2071 |
Static quality checks ✅Please find below the results from static quality gates Successful checksInfo
|
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: 01c0789 Optimization Goals: ✅ Improvement(s) detected
|
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | +1.59 | [+0.79, +2.39] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | egress throughput | +0.34 | [-0.13, +0.81] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.09 | [-0.70, +0.87] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | egress throughput | +0.06 | [-0.78, +0.89] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.82, +0.82] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.63, +0.63] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | egress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.83, +0.83] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.32, +0.30] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.03, +0.01] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.67, +0.65] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.18 | [-0.96, +0.59] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | -0.61 | [-3.34, +2.13] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | -0.79 | [-0.86, -0.73] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | -4.75 | [-4.85, -4.65] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | -6.92 | [-6.99, -6.85] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | file_tree | memory utilization | -6.93 | [-7.11, -6.76] | 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_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 | |
| ✅ | 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_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 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.
What does this PR do?
Fixes the message pack serialization code for SpanEvents, we use camel_case for these. The protobuf definition is still correct so no changes needed there.
Motivation
Span Events sent via messagepack were not successfully being decoded if they were sent using the new span_events field.
Describe how you validated your changes
I used message pack payloads from the ruby tracer to verify this change and have added an automated test to ensure this payload is properly serialized.
Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
Additional Notes