[PROCS-4154] Create E2E tests for the process-agent on k8s #26949
Conversation
… cpu/mem/io process
…a process is not found or missing data.
|
[Fast Unit Tests Report] On pipeline 37388523 (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-developer-experience |
Test changes on VMUse this command from test-infra-definitions to manually test this PR changes on a VM: inv create-vm --pipeline-id=37388523 --os-family=ubuntuNote: This applies to commit 35c8c51 |
wiyu
changed the title
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsRun ID: 4c690a8c-58b3-4075-973a-3ebb53b4a3c2 Metrics dashboard Target profiles Baseline: 4bddf58 Performance changes are noted in the perf column of each table:
No significant changes in experiment optimization goalsConfidence level: 90.00% There were no significant changes in experiment optimization goals at this confidence level and effect size tolerance.
|
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | +4.18 | [-8.82, +17.18] | Logs |
| ➖ | pycheck_1000_100byte_tags | % cpu utilization | +1.96 | [-2.98, +6.91] | Logs |
| ➖ | idle | memory utilization | +0.06 | [+0.03, +0.10] | Logs |
| ➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.01, +0.01] | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.00, +0.00] | Logs |
| ➖ | otel_to_otel_logs | ingress throughput | -0.16 | [-0.97, +0.65] | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | -1.15 | [-2.04, -0.27] | Logs |
| ➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | -1.48 | [-1.55, -1.41] | Logs |
| ➖ | basic_py_check | % cpu utilization | -1.64 | [-4.24, +0.96] | Logs |
Explanation
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".
wiyu
added
the
qa/no-code-change
| // This is so we get just json back from the check | ||
| stdout, stderr, err := s.Env().KubernetesCluster.KubernetesClient. | ||
| PodExec(agent.Namespace, agent.Name, "process-agent", | ||
| []string{"bash", "-c", "DD_LOG_LEVEL=OFF process-agent check container -w 5s --json"}) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we maybe increase this to 10 seconds to help avoid potential flakiness?
| stdout, stderr, err := s.Env().KubernetesCluster.KubernetesClient. | ||
| PodExec(agent.Namespace, agent.Name, "process-agent", | ||
| []string{"bash", "-c", "DD_LOG_LEVEL=OFF agent status --json"}) | ||
| require.NoError(t, err) | ||
| assert.Empty(t, stderr) | ||
| assert.NotNil(t, stdout, "failed to get agent status") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why do get the core agent status from the process-agent container? I think we should use the agent container here so it can also be used in future tests for the core checks.
| stdout, stderr, err := s.Env().KubernetesCluster.KubernetesClient. | ||
| PodExec(agent.Namespace, agent.Name, "process-agent", | ||
| []string{"bash", "-c", "DD_LOG_LEVEL=OFF process-agent check process_discovery -w 5s --json"}) | ||
| assert.NoError(s.T(), err) | ||
| assert.Empty(s.T(), stderr) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
is it worth making a generic manual check exec function? Seems like the behavior is same between the three.
What does this PR do?
Motivation
PROCS-4154 - Automate manual testing of the process agent in a k8s environment
Additional Notes
Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
Describe how to test/QA your changes