[CWS] Fix race in WaitSignal - #44717
Conversation
Static quality checks✅ Please find below the results from static quality gates Successful checksInfo
|
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: 85e4ff2 Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ➖ | docker_containers_cpu | % cpu utilization | -1.73 | [-4.63, +1.16] | 1 | Logs |
Fine details of change detection per experiment
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ➖ | ddot_logs | memory utilization | +0.76 | [+0.70, +0.83] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_20mb_12k_contexts_20_senders | memory utilization | +0.27 | [+0.22, +0.33] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | +0.24 | [-1.22, +1.70] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | ddot_metrics_sum_delta | memory utilization | +0.13 | [-0.08, +0.34] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.09 | [-0.28, +0.46] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.05 | [-0.00, +0.09] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.01 | [-0.40, +0.42] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | +0.01 | [-0.12, +0.13] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_v3 | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.13, +0.13] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.08, +0.08] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.39, +0.37] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | ddot_metrics_sum_cumulativetodelta_exporter | memory utilization | -0.05 | [-0.28, +0.18] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | docker_containers_memory | memory utilization | -0.17 | [-0.24, -0.10] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | otlp_ingest_metrics | memory utilization | -0.18 | [-0.33, -0.02] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | -0.19 | [-0.23, -0.14] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | -0.22 | [-0.27, -0.16] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | otlp_ingest_logs | memory utilization | -0.25 | [-0.36, -0.14] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | -0.34 | [-0.38, -0.30] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | ddot_metrics_sum_cumulative | memory utilization | -0.56 | [-0.73, -0.40] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | memory utilization | -0.84 | [-1.04, -0.63] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | -1.14 | [-1.21, -1.06] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | ddot_metrics | memory utilization | -1.15 | [-1.37, -0.93] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | docker_containers_cpu | % cpu utilization | -1.73 | [-4.63, +1.16] | 1 | Logs |
Bounds Checks: ✅ Passed
| perf | experiment | bounds_check_name | replicates_passed | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ✅ | docker_containers_cpu | simple_check_run | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | docker_containers_memory | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | docker_containers_memory | simple_check_run | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | 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_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 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_logs | lost_bytes | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_logs | memory_usage | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | cpu_usage | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | intake_connections | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | lost_bytes | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | memory_usage | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
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:
-
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".
CI Pass/Fail Decision
✅ Passed. All Quality Gates 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_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_metrics_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check lost_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check cpu_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check lost_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
818899d to
4fa07e1
Compare
| tb.Logf("Filtering event: got rule %q, expected %q", r.ID, ruleID) | ||
| return | ||
| } | ||
| tb.Helper() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Really small nit: Use it right at the top of this function.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
true, will edit that
| @@ -561,6 +622,24 @@ func (tm *testModule) WaitSignal(tb testing.TB, action func() error, cb onRuleHa | |||
| }) | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| // WaitSignalFromRule is like WaitSignal but filters events by ruleID | |||
| // to prevent stale events from previous sub-tests from being processed. | |||
| func (tm *testModule) WaitSignalFromRule(tb testing.TB, action func() error, cb onRuleHandler, ruleID string) { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
To avoid duplicated code, you can delete all the implementation of WaitSignal(), waitSignal() and getSignal and make it use your implementation with an empty ruleID if you always match when the rule id is "" on getSignalFromRule().
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You are completely right. I wanted to keep the old function as a first step but I can still keep it with an empty string yes! I'll do that
7809777 to
50eeca5
Compare
|
/merge |
|
View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.
The expected merge time in
|
What does this PR do?
Fix a race causing some tests to fail in wait signal. This fails were flaky and impacted a lot of tests.
Motivation
A race in the function WaitSignal was causing some test to fail or to pass even if they were not supposed to.
If we had at least two subtests and the first test generate multiple events that match rule A, then one of these events will be kept in the handler for the test B (because the handler is not cleaned up between subtests). It that case, the test will considerer the second event matching rule A as the event created by the action on the test B and will cause a fail. After that, every next test will fail, matching the previous rule. It was very common in the DNS test but can occur in other tests.
This PR should fix :
Describe how you validated your changes
Additional Notes
In the future, we should separate sub-tests that match the same rule into different tests, especially if the actions we are doing can create multiple events.