-
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
Converter: Support Defined but empty components #33930
Converter: Support Defined but empty components #33930
Conversation
Uncompressed package size comparisonComparison with ancestor Diff per package
Decision✅ Passed |
Test changes on VMUse this command from test-infra-definitions to manually test this PR changes on a VM: inv aws.create-vm --pipeline-id=55939420 --os-family=ubuntu Note: This applies to commit 0db5e3e |
Static quality checks ✅Please find below the results from static quality gates Info
|
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: 977c866 Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | +3.62 | [+0.52, +6.72] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | egress throughput | +0.17 | [-0.29, +0.63] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.17 | [-0.61, +0.95] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | +0.10 | [+0.04, +0.17] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | egress throughput | +0.07 | [-0.86, +0.99] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.03 | [-0.91, +0.97] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | egress throughput | +0.02 | [-0.88, +0.92] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.26, +0.27] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.01, +0.01] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.02 | [-0.66, +0.62] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.02 | [-0.74, +0.71] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | -0.05 | [-0.13, +0.02] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.26 | [-1.03, +0.51] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | -0.49 | [-0.53, -0.46] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | -0.60 | [-1.49, +0.28] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | -2.58 | [-2.68, -2.49] | 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_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, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle, bounds check intake_connections: 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.
LGTM
if components == nil { | ||
// components map is nil. It is defined but section is empty. | ||
// need to create map manually | ||
stringMapConf[comp.Type] = make(map[string]any) |
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.
stringMapConf[comp.Type] = make(map[string]any) | |
componentsMap = make(map[string]any) |
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.
Addressed in 0db5e3e 👍
/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 median merge time in
|
What does this PR do?
Previously, when a component config section was defined but empty, this lead to the component not being added.
e.g. if you had extensions defined as so:
Then we wouldn't add the extensions to this, but we would add them to the pipelines, which would lead to otel-agent failing to start.
This PR fixes this bug (the type assertion to map was failing when the section is left empty).
This PR addresses this for processors, receivers and extensions. exporters and connectors are not affected because we don't add these component types in converter.
Motivation
OTAGENT-269
Describe how you validated your changes
Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
Additional Notes