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

Migrate CI to deva #33587

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Migrate CI to deva #33587

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

ofek
Copy link
Contributor

@ofek ofek commented Jan 30, 2025

What does this PR do?

  • Remove use of requirements files in favor of centralized dependency management in deva
  • Adds a custom composite action for easily installing the proper version of deva in GitHub Actions workflows

Motivation

Continuation of DataDog/datadog-agent-buildimages#741

Describe how you validated your changes

  • Ran rg -. "requirements.+txt"
  • Ran rg -. "inv "
  • Removed associated logic in favor of deva usage

@ofek ofek requested a review from a team as a code owner January 30, 2025 16:09
@github-actions github-actions bot added the short review PR is simple enough to be reviewed quickly label Jan 30, 2025
@ofek ofek force-pushed the ofek/requirements branch 2 times, most recently from 7d9d6bd to e6cbe38 Compare January 30, 2025 16:54
@agent-platform-auto-pr
Copy link
Contributor

agent-platform-auto-pr bot commented Jan 30, 2025

Uncompressed package size comparison

Comparison with ancestor 18800a41f40a5fee9eb6edc53c2472dde86ca0de

Diff per package
package diff status size ancestor threshold
datadog-agent-x86_64-rpm 0.00MB 878.39MB 878.39MB 0.50MB
datadog-agent-x86_64-suse 0.00MB 878.39MB 878.39MB 0.50MB
datadog-agent-aarch64-rpm 0.00MB 867.71MB 867.71MB 0.50MB
datadog-agent-amd64-deb 0.00MB 868.62MB 868.62MB 0.50MB
datadog-agent-arm64-deb 0.00MB 857.96MB 857.96MB 0.50MB
datadog-dogstatsd-amd64-deb 0.00MB 41.39MB 41.39MB 0.50MB
datadog-dogstatsd-x86_64-rpm 0.00MB 41.47MB 41.47MB 0.50MB
datadog-dogstatsd-x86_64-suse 0.00MB 41.47MB 41.47MB 0.50MB
datadog-dogstatsd-arm64-deb 0.00MB 39.65MB 39.65MB 0.50MB
datadog-heroku-agent-amd64-deb 0.00MB 445.88MB 445.88MB 0.50MB
datadog-iot-agent-amd64-deb 0.00MB 61.84MB 61.84MB 0.50MB
datadog-iot-agent-x86_64-rpm 0.00MB 61.91MB 61.91MB 0.50MB
datadog-iot-agent-x86_64-suse 0.00MB 61.91MB 61.91MB 0.50MB
datadog-iot-agent-arm64-deb 0.00MB 59.09MB 59.09MB 0.50MB
datadog-iot-agent-aarch64-rpm 0.00MB 59.16MB 59.16MB 0.50MB

Decision

✅ Passed

Copy link

cit-pr-commenter bot commented Jan 30, 2025

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Metrics dashboard
Target profiles
Run ID: 4e9cb6cd-4a4f-440a-972f-d267cb7e6ae1

Baseline: 18800a4
Comparison: bc42134
Diff

Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf experiment goal Δ mean % Δ mean % CI trials links
uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu % cpu utilization +1.11 [+0.23, +1.98] 1 Logs
quality_gate_logs % cpu utilization +1.04 [-1.98, +4.05] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency egress throughput +0.31 [-0.46, +1.08] 1 Logs
quality_gate_idle memory utilization +0.16 [+0.10, +0.22] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_idle_all_features memory utilization +0.04 [-0.01, +0.09] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency egress throughput +0.02 [-0.80, +0.84] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency egress throughput +0.02 [-0.77, +0.80] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 egress throughput +0.01 [-0.82, +0.84] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 egress throughput +0.01 [-0.79, +0.80] 1 Logs
tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude ingress throughput +0.01 [-0.02, +0.03] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency egress throughput +0.00 [-0.65, +0.66] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load egress throughput -0.00 [-0.47, +0.47] 1 Logs
uds_dogstatsd_to_api ingress throughput -0.01 [-0.30, +0.28] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency egress throughput -0.01 [-0.64, +0.61] 1 Logs
file_tree memory utilization -0.18 [-0.24, -0.13] 1 Logs
tcp_syslog_to_blackhole ingress throughput -0.79 [-0.85, -0.73] 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:

  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_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 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 intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.

@ofek ofek added qa/no-code-change No code change in Agent code requiring validation do-not-merge/WIP labels Jan 30, 2025
@ofek ofek force-pushed the ofek/requirements branch from e6cbe38 to ed554f2 Compare January 31, 2025 06:44
@ofek ofek requested review from a team as code owners January 31, 2025 06:44
@ofek ofek force-pushed the ofek/requirements branch 2 times, most recently from d28f562 to a16a8ec Compare February 13, 2025 05:28
@guyarb
Copy link
Contributor

guyarb commented Feb 13, 2025

@ofek Can you convert the PR into a draft while it has do-not-merge tag?
The notifications are spamming the reviewer list

@ofek ofek marked this pull request as draft February 13, 2025 05:37
@ofek ofek force-pushed the ofek/requirements branch 6 times, most recently from 0521b65 to 0c16f73 Compare February 15, 2025 04:26
@ofek ofek marked this pull request as ready for review February 15, 2025 17:19
Copy link
Member

@chouetz chouetz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Few remarks:

  • I asked the question with a specific comment: if the syntax is now deva inv instead of inv I think there are some occurrences where it was just deva instead of inv, and we should fix them to be fully uniform
  • I tried to look for places where we used invoke instead of inv and gave you links. Please check if I was right or wrong, thanks in advance.

@KevinFairise2
Copy link
Member

/trigger-ci --variable RUN_ALL_BUILDS=true --variable RUN_KITCHEN_TESTS=true --variable RUN_E2E_TESTS=on --variable DEPLOY_AGENT=true --variable RUN_UNIT_TESTS=on --variable RUN_KMT_TESTS=on

@dd-devflow
Copy link

dd-devflow bot commented Feb 17, 2025

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.
2025-02-17 15:01:33 UTC ℹ️ Start processing command /trigger-ci --variable RUN_ALL_BUILDS=true --variable RUN_KITCHEN_TESTS=true --variable RUN_E2E_TESTS=on --variable DEPLOY_AGENT=true --variable RUN_UNIT_TESTS=on --variable RUN_KMT_TESTS=on


2025-02-17 15:02:26 UTC ℹ️ Gitlab pipeline started

Started pipeline #56082383

@ofek ofek force-pushed the ofek/requirements branch from 0c16f73 to c9d2338 Compare February 18, 2025 18:02
@ofek ofek requested a review from a team as a code owner February 18, 2025 18:02
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Did you have a chance to test the workflows to make sure they still work ?
The same change in buildimages broke a similar workflow...

@ofek ofek force-pushed the ofek/requirements branch 2 times, most recently from 4d24738 to 1ab9efd Compare February 20, 2025 00:08
@ofek ofek force-pushed the ofek/requirements branch from 1ab9efd to 3c681e3 Compare February 20, 2025 02:54
Copy link
Member

@wdhif wdhif left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I might also be worth making the change for the https://github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/blob/main/skaffold.yaml file?

I had a quick look and the first build using deva inv leads to this failure:

DEBU[0009] Running command: [sh -c docker exec datadog_agent_devcontainer bash -c " deva --verbose inv agent.hacky-dev-image-build --target-image=$IMAGE"]  subtask=agent task=Build
Building [agent]...
Target platforms: [linux/arm64]
Using CPython 3.12.8 interpreter at: /usr/bin/python3
Creating virtual environment with seed packages at: /root/.local/share/deva/venvs/legacy
 + pip==25.0.1
Prepared 3 packages in 127ms
error: Failed to install: awscli-1.29.45-py3-none-any.whl (awscli==1.29.45)
  Caused by: failed to copy file from /root/.local/share/deva/venvs/legacy/lib/python3.12/site-packages/awscli-1.29.45.data/scripts/aws_zsh_completer.sh to /root/.local/share/deva/venvs/legacy/bin/aws_zsh_completer.sh: No such file or directory (os error 2)
Command failed with exit code 2: ['/usr/local/bin/uv', 'sync', '--frozen', '--no-install-project', '--inexact', '--only-group', 'legacy-tasks']
Build [agent] failed: building custom artifact: exit status 1

Do you know what could be causing this behavior?
Subsequent builds are good. Next run looks like this:

DEBU[0011] Running command: [sh -c docker exec datadog_agent_devcontainer bash -c " deva --verbose inv agent.hacky-dev-image-build --target-image=$IMAGE"]  subtask=agent task=Build
Audited 94 packages in 0.06ms
Unable to find image 'gcr.io/datadoghq/agent:7.63.0' locally
7.63.0: Pulling from datadoghq/agent
b32c3a0de16e: Pulling fs layer
b32c3a0de16e: Download complete
b32c3a0de16e: Pull complete

@ofek
Copy link
Contributor Author

ofek commented Feb 20, 2025

I'm trying to reproduce but the skaffold tasks aren't working on Windows. I'll try to debug that later today but are all subsequent builds successful?

@wdhif
Copy link
Member

wdhif commented Feb 20, 2025

I'm trying to reproduce but the skaffold tasks aren't working on Windows. I'll try to debug that later today but are all subsequent builds successful?

I did not try multiple times afterwards but I can try, it did appears to work after the first failure though.

@ofek
Copy link
Contributor Author

ofek commented Feb 20, 2025

This was the issue #34253

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
changelog/no-changelog component/system-probe long review PR is complex, plan time to review it qa/no-code-change No code change in Agent code requiring validation team/agent-developer-tools
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet