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

chore(e2e/install-script): Adds more visibility to the security communicaiton to system-probe #27396

Conversation

f4usto
Copy link
Contributor

@f4usto f4usto commented Jul 8, 2024

What does this PR do?

This PR adds more visibility to the e2e CheckCWSBehaviour/system-probe and security-agent communicate test by removing the silent failing and adding some logging to the tt suite.

Motivation

This test flakes, but it is unclear the step that leads to this.

@f4usto f4usto added changelog/no-changelog qa/no-code-change Skip QA week as there is no code change in Agent code labels Jul 8, 2024
@f4usto f4usto self-assigned this Jul 8, 2024
@agent-platform-auto-pr
Copy link
Contributor

agent-platform-auto-pr bot commented Jul 8, 2024

[Fast Unit Tests Report]

On pipeline 39139451 (CI Visibility). The following jobs did not run any unit tests:

Jobs:
  • tests_deb-arm64-py3
  • tests_deb-x64-py3
  • tests_flavor_dogstatsd_deb-x64
  • tests_flavor_heroku_deb-x64
  • tests_flavor_iot_deb-x64
  • tests_rpm-arm64-py3
  • tests_rpm-x64-py3
  • tests_windows-x64

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-devx-help

@f4usto f4usto marked this pull request as ready for review July 8, 2024 10:45
@f4usto f4usto requested review from a team as code owners July 8, 2024 10:45
@pr-commenter
Copy link

pr-commenter bot commented Jul 8, 2024

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Run ID: 02ed5896-70c5-4838-8c9e-74aca73ae4b8 Metrics dashboard Target profiles

Baseline: fae9123
Comparison: 634e7d2

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

No significant changes in experiment optimization goals

Confidence level: 90.00%
Effect size tolerance: |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%

There were no significant changes in experiment optimization goals at this confidence level and effect size tolerance.

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf experiment goal Δ mean % Δ mean % CI links
pycheck_1000_100byte_tags % cpu utilization +3.28 [-1.68, +8.24] Logs
file_tree memory utilization +1.18 [+1.08, +1.28] Logs
basic_py_check % cpu utilization +1.18 [-1.57, +3.92] Logs
tcp_syslog_to_blackhole ingress throughput +0.88 [-11.94, +13.71] 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
idle memory utilization -0.27 [-0.31, -0.23] Logs
otel_to_otel_logs ingress throughput -0.38 [-1.19, +0.42] Logs
uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu % cpu utilization -0.76 [-1.66, +0.14] 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:

  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".

@pr-commenter
Copy link

pr-commenter bot commented Jul 8, 2024

Test changes on VM

Use this command from test-infra-definitions to manually test this PR changes on a VM:

inv create-vm --pipeline-id=39139451 --os-family=ubuntu

Note: This applies to commit 634e7d2

@f4usto f4usto requested a review from alopezz July 8, 2024 12:10
@alopezz alopezz self-requested a review July 9, 2024 12:03
@f4usto
Copy link
Contributor Author

f4usto commented Jul 15, 2024

/merge

@dd-devflow
Copy link

dd-devflow bot commented Jul 15, 2024

🚂 MergeQueue: waiting for PR to be ready

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.
Note: if you pushed new commits since the last approval, you may need additional approval.
You can remove it from the waiting list with /remove command.

Use /merge -c to cancel this operation!

@dd-devflow
Copy link

dd-devflow bot commented Jul 15, 2024

🚂 MergeQueue: pull request added to the queue

The median merge time in main is 28m.

Use /merge -c to cancel this operation!

@dd-mergequeue dd-mergequeue bot merged commit 1331ea4 into main Jul 15, 2024
202 of 205 checks passed
@dd-mergequeue dd-mergequeue bot deleted the f4usto/adds-more-sibility-to-security-system-communicaiton-e2e-test branch July 15, 2024 12:16
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the 7.57.0 milestone Jul 15, 2024
stanistan pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 15, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
changelog/no-changelog qa/no-code-change Skip QA week as there is no code change in Agent code
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants