Skip to content

Fix initialization of samplers for probe file - #12067

Merged
gh-worker-dd-mergequeue-cf854d[bot] merged 2 commits into
masterfrom
jpbempel/fix-samplers-probe-file
Jul 30, 2026
Merged

Fix initialization of samplers for probe file#12067
gh-worker-dd-mergequeue-cf854d[bot] merged 2 commits into
masterfrom
jpbempel/fix-samplers-probe-file

Conversation

@jpbempel

@jpbempel jpbempel commented Jul 24, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

What Does This Do

When loading probes from file, initSamplers method is not called for deserialized probes. we centralize probe deserialization in ProbeDefinitionDeserializer class and add smoke test for this.

Motivation

Additional Notes

Contributor Checklist

Jira ticket: DEBUG-5873

@jpbempel
jpbempel requested a review from a team as a code owner July 24, 2026 14:11
@jpbempel
jpbempel requested review from tylfin and removed request for a team July 24, 2026 14:11
@dd-octo-sts

dd-octo-sts Bot commented Jul 24, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Hi! 👋 Thanks for your pull request! 🎉

To help us review it, please make sure to:

  • Add at least one type, and one component or instrumentation label to the pull request

If you need help, please check our contributing guidelines.

@jpbempel jpbempel added comp: debugger Dynamic Instrumentation type: bug fix Bug fix labels Jul 24, 2026

@datadog-prod-us1-5 datadog-prod-us1-5 Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Datadog Autotest: PASS

More details

The file-loader change correctly centralizes probe deserialization and initializes samplers for log, trigger, and span-decoration probes without changing metric or span handling. No concrete diff-only regression was identified; package tests could not execute because this checkout requires Java 25 while the environment provides Java 21.

Was this helpful? React 👍 or 👎

Open Bits AI session

🤖 Datadog Autotest · Commit 8dfe6f4 · What is Autotest? · @DataDog review to ask questions · Any feedback? Reach out in #autotest

@datadog-prod-us1-5

datadog-prod-us1-5 Bot commented Jul 24, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

View session in Datadog

Bits Code status: ✅ Done

Comment @DataDog to request changes

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 8dfe6f4c21

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".

assertInstanceOf(MetricProbe.class, definitions.get(0));
assertInstanceOf(LogProbe.class, definitions.get(1));
assertEquals(6, definitions.size());
assertInstanceOf(TriggerProbe.class, definitions.get(0));

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

P1 Badge Fix expected probe ordering in loader test

The probe-file fixture still starts with a LOG_PROBE and appends the new TRIGGER_PROBE at the end, and ConfigurationFileLoader appends definitions in JSON array order. This assertion therefore fails immediately with a LogProbe at index 0, so the updated test blocks the module test suite before it can verify the sampler initialization change.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

no, Configuration::getDefinitions add definitions in a different order

@datadog-prod-us1-5

This comment has been minimized.

@pr-commenter

pr-commenter Bot commented Jul 24, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Debugger benchmarks

Parameters

Baseline Candidate
baseline_or_candidate baseline candidate
ci_job_date 1785402786 1785403132
end_time 2026-07-30T09:14:32 2026-07-30T09:20:17
git_branch master jpbempel/fix-samplers-probe-file
git_commit_sha db219d3 297ee2f
start_time 2026-07-30T09:13:07 2026-07-30T09:18:53
See matching parameters
Baseline Candidate
ci_job_id 1907656135 1907656135
ci_pipeline_id 127921767 127921767
cpu_model Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8259CL CPU @ 2.50GHz Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8259CL CPU @ 2.50GHz
git_commit_date 1785402139 1785402139

Summary

Found 0 performance improvements and 0 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 10 metrics, 5 unstable metrics.

See unchanged results
scenario Δ mean agg_http_req_duration_min Δ mean agg_http_req_duration_p50 Δ mean agg_http_req_duration_p75 Δ mean agg_http_req_duration_p99 Δ mean throughput
scenario:noprobe unstable
[-17.283µs; +20.253µs] or [-5.982%; +7.010%]
unstable
[-25.679µs; +33.363µs] or [-7.764%; +10.087%]
unstable
[-34.944µs; +44.266µs] or [-10.112%; +12.810%]
unstable
[-278.695µs; -75.678µs] or [-19.209%; -5.216%]
same
scenario:basic unsure
[-4.723µs; -0.383µs] or [-1.793%; -0.146%]
same same unstable
[-266.268µs; -23.365µs] or [-20.444%; -1.794%]
same
scenario:loop unsure
[+2.033µs; +7.798µs] or [+0.023%; +0.088%]
same same same same
Request duration reports for reports
gantt
    title reports - request duration [CI 0.99] : candidate=None, baseline=None
    dateFormat X
    axisFormat %s
section baseline
noprobe (330.743 µs) : 306, 355
.   : milestone, 331,
basic (298.12 µs) : 291, 305
.   : milestone, 298,
loop (8.974 ms) : 8970, 8979
.   : milestone, 8974,
section candidate
noprobe (334.586 µs) : 303, 366
.   : milestone, 335,
basic (295.709 µs) : 289, 302
.   : milestone, 296,
loop (8.974 ms) : 8969, 8979
.   : milestone, 8974,
Loading
  • baseline results
Scenario Request median duration [CI 0.99]
noprobe 330.743 µs [306.423 µs, 355.064 µs]
basic 298.12 µs [291.184 µs, 305.057 µs]
loop 8.974 ms [8.97 ms, 8.979 ms]
  • candidate results
Scenario Request median duration [CI 0.99]
noprobe 334.586 µs [303.215 µs, 365.956 µs]
basic 295.709 µs [289.336 µs, 302.082 µs]
loop 8.974 ms [8.969 ms, 8.979 ms]

@dd-octo-sts

dd-octo-sts Bot commented Jul 24, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

🟡 Java Benchmark SLOs — Performance SLO warning (near threshold)

Suite Status
Startup 🟡 warning

SLO thresholds are defined here based on automatically generated metrics. A warning is raised when results are within 5% of the threshold.

PR vs. master results
Scenario Candidate master Δ (95% CI of mean)
startup:insecure-bank:iast:Agent 14.81 s 14.68 s [+0.1%; +1.6%] (maybe worse)
startup:insecure-bank:tracing:Agent 13.61 s 13.71 s [-1.6%; +0.1%] (no difference)
startup:petclinic:appsec:Agent 16.93 s 16.84 s [-0.5%; +1.6%] (no difference)
startup:petclinic:iast:Agent 16.96 s 16.97 s [-0.9%; +0.8%] (no difference)
startup:petclinic:profiling:Agent 16.78 s 16.93 s [-2.0%; +0.1%] (no difference)
startup:petclinic:sca:Agent 16.97 s 16.76 s [+0.4%; +2.2%] (maybe worse)
startup:petclinic:tracing:Agent 15.58 s 16.08 s [-7.2%; +1.0%] (no difference)

Commit: 297ee2f3 · CI Pipeline · Benchmarking Platform UI


Load and DaCapo benchmarks can be triggered manually in the GitLab pipeline. Results will appear in the Benchmarking Platform UI after completion.

@jpbempel
jpbempel added this pull request to the merge queue Jul 28, 2026
@dd-octo-sts

dd-octo-sts Bot commented Jul 28, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

/merge

@gh-worker-devflow-routing-ef8351

gh-worker-devflow-routing-ef8351 Bot commented Jul 28, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.

2026-07-28 10:08:45 UTC ℹ️ Start processing command /merge


2026-07-28 10:08:49 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: pull request added to the queue

The expected merge time in master is approximately 1h (p90).


2026-07-28 10:38:43 UTCMergeQueue: The build pipeline contains failing jobs for this merge request

Build pipeline has failing jobs for ccbb854:

⚠️ Do NOT retry failed jobs directly (why?).

What to do next?

  • Investigate the failures and when ready, re-add your pull request to the queue!
  • If your PR checks are green, try to rebase/merge. It might be because the CI run is a bit old.
  • Any question, go check the FAQ.
Details

Since those jobs are not marked as being allowed to fail, the pipeline will most likely fail.
Therefore, and to allow other builds to be processed, this merge request has been rejected and the pipeline got canceled.

@github-merge-queue
github-merge-queue Bot removed this pull request from the merge queue due to failed status checks Jul 28, 2026
@jpbempel
jpbempel added this pull request to the merge queue Jul 30, 2026
@dd-octo-sts

dd-octo-sts Bot commented Jul 30, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

/merge

@gh-worker-devflow-routing-ef8351

gh-worker-devflow-routing-ef8351 Bot commented Jul 30, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.

2026-07-30 08:24:17 UTC ℹ️ Start processing command /merge


2026-07-30 08:24:22 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: pull request added to the queue

The expected merge time in master is approximately 1h (p90).


2026-07-30 09:00:25 UTCMergeQueue: The build pipeline contains failing jobs for this merge request

Build pipeline has failing jobs for baa8757:

⚠️ Do NOT retry failed jobs directly (why?).

What to do next?

  • Investigate the failures and when ready, re-add your pull request to the queue!
  • If your PR checks are green, try to rebase/merge. It might be because the CI run is a bit old.
  • Any question, go check the FAQ.
Details

Since those jobs are not marked as being allowed to fail, the pipeline will most likely fail.
Therefore, and to allow other builds to be processed, this merge request has been rejected and the pipeline got canceled.

@github-merge-queue
github-merge-queue Bot removed this pull request from the merge queue due to failed status checks Jul 30, 2026
jpbempel added 2 commits July 30, 2026 11:02
When loading probes from file, initSamplers method is not called for
deserialized probes. we centralize probe deserialization in
ProbeDefinitionDeserializer class and add smoke test for this.
@jpbempel
jpbempel force-pushed the jpbempel/fix-samplers-probe-file branch from 0f7334f to 297ee2f Compare July 30, 2026 09:02
@jpbempel
jpbempel added this pull request to the merge queue Jul 30, 2026
@dd-octo-sts

dd-octo-sts Bot commented Jul 30, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

/merge

@gh-worker-devflow-routing-ef8351

gh-worker-devflow-routing-ef8351 Bot commented Jul 30, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.

2026-07-30 10:30:47 UTC ℹ️ Start processing command /merge


2026-07-30 10:30:51 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: pull request added to the queue

The expected merge time in master is approximately 1h (p90).


2026-07-30 11:19:26 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: This merge request was merged

@github-merge-queue
github-merge-queue Bot removed this pull request from the merge queue due to failed status checks Jul 30, 2026
@gh-worker-dd-mergequeue-cf854d
gh-worker-dd-mergequeue-cf854d Bot merged commit 553e3dc into master Jul 30, 2026
789 of 791 checks passed
@gh-worker-dd-mergequeue-cf854d
gh-worker-dd-mergequeue-cf854d Bot deleted the jpbempel/fix-samplers-probe-file branch July 30, 2026 11:19
@github-actions github-actions Bot added this to the 1.65.0 milestone Jul 30, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

comp: debugger Dynamic Instrumentation type: bug fix Bug fix

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants