-
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
Update golang.org/x deps #31958
Update golang.org/x deps #31958
Conversation
Package size comparisonComparison with ancestor Diff per package
Decision |
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: 22edfeb Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | +1.07 | [+0.34, +1.80] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | +0.75 | [+0.63, +0.87] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | +0.32 | [+0.25, +0.39] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | otel_to_otel_logs | ingress throughput | +0.29 | [-0.37, +0.95] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | +0.20 | [+0.08, +0.33] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.16 | [-0.47, +0.79] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | egress throughput | +0.16 | [-0.72, +1.04] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | egress throughput | +0.02 | [-0.87, +0.92] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.02 | [-0.66, +0.70] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.01, +0.01] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.79, +0.79] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.12, +0.09] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | egress throughput | -0.09 | [-0.54, +0.36] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | -0.19 | [-3.12, +2.74] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | -0.20 | [-0.24, -0.15] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.33 | [-1.10, +0.44] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.35 | [-1.13, +0.43] | 1 | Logs |
Bounds Checks: ❌ Failed
perf | experiment | bounds_check_name | replicates_passed | links |
---|---|---|---|---|
❌ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | lost_bytes | 9/10 | |
❌ | 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_0ms_latency_http1 | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | memory_usage | 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 | 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_idle_all_features, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate 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.
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.
👍 for container-platform files
/merge |
Devflow running:
|
What does this PR do?
Update all
golang.org/x/...
dependencies.Motivation
Keep dependencies up to date and close a dozen dependabot PRs.
Update go
golang.org/x/crypto
to 0.31.0 fixes CVE-2024-45337.Describe how you validated your changes
Handled by CI.
Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
Additional Notes
I should make a scheduled github workflow to open this PR as it becomes annoying.