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

ci: parallel system tests #8791

Merged
merged 17 commits into from
Mar 28, 2024
Merged

ci: parallel system tests #8791

merged 17 commits into from
Mar 28, 2024

Conversation

gnufede
Copy link
Member

@gnufede gnufede commented Mar 27, 2024

CI: Slashes system tests running time in half (~40 min to ~20).

Main drawback for this approach:
Doubles actual usage time. We can group the scenarios to reduce the overhead, since most of them take ~1 min to run, and now an extra ~1 min to fetch the docker images.

Checklist

  • Change(s) are motivated and described in the PR description
  • Testing strategy is described if automated tests are not included in the PR
  • Risks are described (performance impact, potential for breakage, maintainability)
  • Change is maintainable (easy to change, telemetry, documentation)
  • Library release note guidelines are followed or label changelog/no-changelog is set
  • Documentation is included (in-code, generated user docs, public corp docs)
  • Backport labels are set (if applicable)
  • If this PR changes the public interface, I've notified @DataDog/apm-tees.
  • If change touches code that signs or publishes builds or packages, or handles credentials of any kind, I've requested a review from @DataDog/security-design-and-guidance.

Reviewer Checklist

  • Title is accurate
  • All changes are related to the pull request's stated goal
  • Description motivates each change
  • Avoids breaking API changes
  • Testing strategy adequately addresses listed risks
  • Change is maintainable (easy to change, telemetry, documentation)
  • Release note makes sense to a user of the library
  • Author has acknowledged and discussed the performance implications of this PR as reported in the benchmarks PR comment
  • Backport labels are set in a manner that is consistent with the release branch maintenance policy

@datadog-dd-trace-py-rkomorn
Copy link

Datadog Report

Branch report: gnufede/ci-parallel-system-tests
Commit report: 7a9eac1
Test service: dd-trace-py

✅ 0 Failed, 157566 Passed, 14834 Skipped, 10h 1m 2.14s Total duration (1h 39m 40.59s time saved)

@pr-commenter
Copy link

pr-commenter bot commented Mar 27, 2024

Benchmarks

Benchmark execution time: 2024-03-27 20:22:44

Comparing candidate commit 54570d7 in PR branch gnufede/ci-parallel-system-tests with baseline commit be880c1 in branch main.

Found 0 performance improvements and 2 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 199 metrics, 9 unstable metrics.

scenario:httppropagationextract-tracecontext_headers

  • 🟥 max_rss_usage [+571.409KB; +755.695KB] or [+2.695%; +3.564%]

scenario:sethttpmeta-all-enabled

  • 🟥 max_rss_usage [+488.327KB; +715.488KB] or [+2.265%; +3.319%]

@gnufede gnufede changed the title Gnufede/ci parallel system tests ci: parallel system tests Mar 27, 2024
@gnufede gnufede added changelog/no-changelog A changelog entry is not required for this PR. CI backport 2.5 backport 2.7 labels Mar 27, 2024
@gnufede gnufede marked this pull request as ready for review March 27, 2024 19:01
@gnufede gnufede requested a review from a team as a code owner March 27, 2024 19:01
@gnufede gnufede requested a review from a team as a code owner March 27, 2024 19:01
@gnufede gnufede requested a review from ZStriker19 March 27, 2024 19:19
Copy link
Collaborator

@emmettbutler emmettbutler left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Amazing

@emmettbutler emmettbutler enabled auto-merge (squash) March 28, 2024 13:55
@emmettbutler emmettbutler merged commit ef4d804 into main Mar 28, 2024
144 of 146 checks passed
@emmettbutler emmettbutler deleted the gnufede/ci-parallel-system-tests branch March 28, 2024 13:55
Copy link
Contributor

The backport to 2.5 failed:

The process '/usr/bin/git' failed with exit code 1

To backport manually, run these commands in your terminal:

# Fetch latest updates from GitHub
git fetch
# Create a new working tree
git worktree add .worktrees/backport-2.5 2.5
# Navigate to the new working tree
cd .worktrees/backport-2.5
# Create a new branch
git switch --create backport-8791-to-2.5
# Cherry-pick the merged commit of this pull request and resolve the conflicts
git cherry-pick -x --mainline 1 ef4d80459a594b8c70610b03b74593c6c997133c
# Push it to GitHub
git push --set-upstream origin backport-8791-to-2.5
# Go back to the original working tree
cd ../..
# Delete the working tree
git worktree remove .worktrees/backport-2.5

Then, create a pull request where the base branch is 2.5 and the compare/head branch is backport-8791-to-2.5.

Copy link
Contributor

The backport to 2.6 failed:

The process '/usr/bin/git' failed with exit code 1

To backport manually, run these commands in your terminal:

# Fetch latest updates from GitHub
git fetch
# Create a new working tree
git worktree add .worktrees/backport-2.6 2.6
# Navigate to the new working tree
cd .worktrees/backport-2.6
# Create a new branch
git switch --create backport-8791-to-2.6
# Cherry-pick the merged commit of this pull request and resolve the conflicts
git cherry-pick -x --mainline 1 ef4d80459a594b8c70610b03b74593c6c997133c
# Push it to GitHub
git push --set-upstream origin backport-8791-to-2.6
# Go back to the original working tree
cd ../..
# Delete the working tree
git worktree remove .worktrees/backport-2.6

Then, create a pull request where the base branch is 2.6 and the compare/head branch is backport-8791-to-2.6.

Copy link
Contributor

The backport to 2.7 failed:

The process '/usr/bin/git' failed with exit code 1

To backport manually, run these commands in your terminal:

# Fetch latest updates from GitHub
git fetch
# Create a new working tree
git worktree add .worktrees/backport-2.7 2.7
# Navigate to the new working tree
cd .worktrees/backport-2.7
# Create a new branch
git switch --create backport-8791-to-2.7
# Cherry-pick the merged commit of this pull request and resolve the conflicts
git cherry-pick -x --mainline 1 ef4d80459a594b8c70610b03b74593c6c997133c
# Push it to GitHub
git push --set-upstream origin backport-8791-to-2.7
# Go back to the original working tree
cd ../..
# Delete the working tree
git worktree remove .worktrees/backport-2.7

Then, create a pull request where the base branch is 2.7 and the compare/head branch is backport-8791-to-2.7.

emmettbutler added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 28, 2024
emmettbutler added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 28, 2024
This reverts commit ef4d804 from #8791,
which broke CI on the main branch.

## Checklist

- [x] Change(s) are motivated and described in the PR description
- [x] Testing strategy is described if automated tests are not included
in the PR
- [x] Risks are described (performance impact, potential for breakage,
maintainability)
- [x] Change is maintainable (easy to change, telemetry, documentation)
- [x] [Library release note
guidelines](https://ddtrace.readthedocs.io/en/stable/releasenotes.html)
are followed or label `changelog/no-changelog` is set
- [x] Documentation is included (in-code, generated user docs, [public
corp docs](https://github.com/DataDog/documentation/))
- [x] Backport labels are set (if
[applicable](https://ddtrace.readthedocs.io/en/latest/contributing.html#backporting))
- [x] If this PR changes the public interface, I've notified
`@DataDog/apm-tees`.
- [x] If change touches code that signs or publishes builds or packages,
or handles credentials of any kind, I've requested a review from
`@DataDog/security-design-and-guidance`.
@emmettbutler
Copy link
Collaborator

emmettbutler commented Mar 28, 2024

@gnufede this broke on the main branch, so i reverted it

christophe-papazian pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 29, 2024
CI: Slashes system tests running time in half (~40 min to ~20).

Main  drawback for this approach:
Doubles actual usage time. We can group the scenarios to reduce the
overhead, since most of them take ~1 min to run, and now an extra ~1 min
to fetch the docker images.

## Checklist

- [x] Change(s) are motivated and described in the PR description
- [x] Testing strategy is described if automated tests are not included
in the PR
- [x] Risks are described (performance impact, potential for breakage,
maintainability)
- [x] Change is maintainable (easy to change, telemetry, documentation)
- [x] [Library release note
guidelines](https://ddtrace.readthedocs.io/en/stable/releasenotes.html)
are followed or label `changelog/no-changelog` is set
- [x] Documentation is included (in-code, generated user docs, [public
corp docs](https://github.com/DataDog/documentation/))
- [x] Backport labels are set (if
[applicable](https://ddtrace.readthedocs.io/en/latest/contributing.html#backporting))
- [x] If this PR changes the public interface, I've notified
`@DataDog/apm-tees`.
- [x] If change touches code that signs or publishes builds or packages,
or handles credentials of any kind, I've requested a review from
`@DataDog/security-design-and-guidance`.

## Reviewer Checklist

- [x] Title is accurate
- [x] All changes are related to the pull request's stated goal
- [x] Description motivates each change
- [x] Avoids breaking
[API](https://ddtrace.readthedocs.io/en/stable/versioning.html#interfaces)
changes
- [x] Testing strategy adequately addresses listed risks
- [x] Change is maintainable (easy to change, telemetry, documentation)
- [x] Release note makes sense to a user of the library
- [x] Author has acknowledged and discussed the performance implications
of this PR as reported in the benchmarks PR comment
- [x] Backport labels are set in a manner that is consistent with the
[release branch maintenance
policy](https://ddtrace.readthedocs.io/en/latest/contributing.html#backporting)
christophe-papazian pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 29, 2024
This reverts commit ef4d804 from #8791,
which broke CI on the main branch.

## Checklist

- [x] Change(s) are motivated and described in the PR description
- [x] Testing strategy is described if automated tests are not included
in the PR
- [x] Risks are described (performance impact, potential for breakage,
maintainability)
- [x] Change is maintainable (easy to change, telemetry, documentation)
- [x] [Library release note
guidelines](https://ddtrace.readthedocs.io/en/stable/releasenotes.html)
are followed or label `changelog/no-changelog` is set
- [x] Documentation is included (in-code, generated user docs, [public
corp docs](https://github.com/DataDog/documentation/))
- [x] Backport labels are set (if
[applicable](https://ddtrace.readthedocs.io/en/latest/contributing.html#backporting))
- [x] If this PR changes the public interface, I've notified
`@DataDog/apm-tees`.
- [x] If change touches code that signs or publishes builds or packages,
or handles credentials of any kind, I've requested a review from
`@DataDog/security-design-and-guidance`.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
backport 2.7 changelog/no-changelog A changelog entry is not required for this PR. CI
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants