-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
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
Add the version to the slack notification for RC PRs #31710
Conversation
[Fast Unit Tests Report] On pipeline 50268616 (CI Visibility). The following jobs did not run any unit tests: Jobs:
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 |
/merge |
Devflow running:
|
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: 01c8ef8 Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
➖ | pycheck_lots_of_tags | % cpu utilization | +1.80 | [-1.66, +5.26] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | basic_py_check | % cpu utilization | +0.41 | [-3.37, +4.20] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | +0.39 | [+0.33, +0.45] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | +0.22 | [-0.50, +0.94] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.11 | [-0.66, +0.89] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | +0.07 | [-0.08, +0.22] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.06 | [-0.74, +0.86] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.05 | [-0.70, +0.81] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | otel_to_otel_logs | ingress throughput | +0.04 | [-0.64, +0.73] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.04 | [-0.80, +0.88] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | +0.02 | [-0.07, +0.11] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.01, +0.01] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.03 | [-0.66, +0.60] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | egress throughput | -0.16 | [-0.63, +0.30] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | -0.57 | [-0.62, -0.52] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | -0.98 | [-1.09, -0.86] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | -1.87 | [-4.80, +1.06] | 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_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 | memory_usage | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
✅ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory_usage | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
✅ | 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_logs, bounds check lost_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate 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.
What does this PR do?
Add the version to the slack notification for RC PRs
Motivation
We sometimes have an overlap between two releases and it's a bit confusing because we have to open the link to know which version it is. I'm going to update the workflow once merged to include this
Describe how you validated your changes
Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
Additional Notes