Skip to content
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

Do not validate signatures when an integration is manually installed in the E2E tests #31530

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 28, 2024

Conversation

FlorentClarret
Copy link
Member

@FlorentClarret FlorentClarret commented Nov 27, 2024

What does this PR do?

Do not validate signatures when an integration is manually installed in the E2E tests

Motivation

In #incident-32841, we started to face issues because the key that signed the version of the integration we were trying to install got revoked (I left the team and I signed this version). Since we build the downloader from source, we started to pick up that change soon after the merge.

As discussed with @iliakur we can skip the signature validation, given this is already triple checked in the integration itself and we want to test the Agent here.

Describe how to test/QA your changes

Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs

Additional Notes

@agent-platform-auto-pr
Copy link
Contributor

agent-platform-auto-pr bot commented Nov 27, 2024

[Fast Unit Tests Report]

On pipeline 50077795 (CI Visibility). The following jobs did not run any unit tests:

Jobs:
  • tests_deb-arm64-py3
  • tests_deb-x64-py3
  • tests_flavor_dogstatsd_deb-x64
  • tests_flavor_heroku_deb-x64
  • tests_flavor_iot_deb-x64
  • tests_rpm-arm64-py3
  • tests_rpm-x64-py3
  • tests_windows-x64

If you modified Go files and expected unit tests to run in these jobs, please double check the job logs. If you think tests should have been executed reach out to #agent-devx-help

@agent-platform-auto-pr
Copy link
Contributor

agent-platform-auto-pr bot commented Nov 27, 2024

Test changes on VM

Use this command from test-infra-definitions to manually test this PR changes on a VM:

inv create-vm --pipeline-id=50077795 --os-family=ubuntu

Note: This applies to commit aaf1b82

Copy link

cit-pr-commenter bot commented Nov 27, 2024

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Metrics dashboard
Target profiles
Run ID: 373c8d3b-cbd4-4b4b-8961-fbf052309873

Baseline: 6686f4d
Comparison: aaf1b82
Diff

Optimization Goals: ❌ Significant changes detected

perf experiment goal Δ mean % Δ mean % CI trials links
basic_py_check % cpu utilization -5.27 [-9.07, -1.46] 1 Logs

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf experiment goal Δ mean % Δ mean % CI trials links
quality_gate_idle memory utilization +0.52 [+0.48, +0.57] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load egress throughput +0.05 [-0.43, +0.52] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency egress throughput +0.03 [-0.74, +0.79] 1 Logs
tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude ingress throughput +0.00 [-0.01, +0.01] 1 Logs
uds_dogstatsd_to_api ingress throughput -0.02 [-0.11, +0.08] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency egress throughput -0.06 [-0.80, +0.67] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency egress throughput -0.10 [-0.73, +0.54] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency egress throughput -0.25 [-1.02, +0.52] 1 Logs
tcp_syslog_to_blackhole ingress throughput -0.33 [-0.40, -0.26] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency egress throughput -0.36 [-1.13, +0.41] 1 Logs
file_tree memory utilization -0.47 [-0.61, -0.33] 1 Logs
uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu % cpu utilization -0.57 [-1.28, +0.15] 1 Logs
otel_to_otel_logs ingress throughput -0.57 [-1.28, +0.14] 1 Logs
quality_gate_idle_all_features memory utilization -0.85 [-0.96, -0.74] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
pycheck_lots_of_tags % cpu utilization -4.84 [-8.25, -1.44] 1 Logs
basic_py_check % cpu utilization -5.27 [-9.07, -1.46] 1 Logs

Bounds Checks: ❌ Failed

perf experiment bounds_check_name replicates_passed links
file_to_blackhole_100ms_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_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 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 memory_usage 10/10 bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_idle_all_features 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_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.

@FlorentClarret FlorentClarret marked this pull request as ready for review November 28, 2024 07:08
@FlorentClarret FlorentClarret requested review from a team as code owners November 28, 2024 07:08
@chouquette
Copy link
Contributor

Would this make sense to BP in the 6.53 branch?

@FlorentClarret
Copy link
Member Author

Would this make sense to BP in the 6.53 branch?

It's not needed. The list of "trusted" keys is stored in the downloader (a special component in integrations-core) directly and we built it from source in the Agent build. Since on release branches we do pin to a specific tag, this list can't change on their end. It happened on our main because we do not pin integrations-core.

@FlorentClarret
Copy link
Member Author

/merge

@dd-devflow
Copy link

dd-devflow bot commented Nov 28, 2024

Devflow running: /merge

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.


2024-11-28 14:10:42 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: pull request added to the queue

The median merge time in main is 23m.

@dd-mergequeue dd-mergequeue bot merged commit 4e201c0 into main Nov 28, 2024
191 checks passed
@dd-mergequeue dd-mergequeue bot deleted the florentclarret/integration branch November 28, 2024 14:30
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the 7.61.0 milestone Nov 28, 2024
@pducolin pducolin added the qa/no-code-change No code change in Agent code requiring validation label Nov 28, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
changelog/no-changelog qa/no-code-change No code change in Agent code requiring validation short review PR is simple enough to be reviewed quickly team/agent-delivery team/container-ecosystems
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants