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

[CWS] Use containerutils.ContainerID in SBOM resolver #31581

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 28, 2024

Conversation

lebauce
Copy link
Contributor

@lebauce lebauce commented Nov 28, 2024

What does this PR do?

Switch to containerutils.ContainerID type instead of string in SBOM resolver.

Motivation

This allows not mixing cgroup and container ids.

Describe how to test/QA your changes

Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs

Additional Notes

@lebauce lebauce added changelog/no-changelog team/agent-security qa/no-code-change No code change in Agent code requiring validation labels Nov 28, 2024
@lebauce lebauce added this to the 7.61.0 milestone Nov 28, 2024
@lebauce lebauce requested a review from a team as a code owner November 28, 2024 17:34
@lebauce lebauce changed the title Use containerutils.ContainerID in SBOM resolver [CWS] Use containerutils.ContainerID in SBOM resolver Nov 28, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added the medium review PR review might take time label Nov 28, 2024
@agent-platform-auto-pr
Copy link
Contributor

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=50119661 --os-family=ubuntu

Note: This applies to commit 5cfabc0

Copy link

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Metrics dashboard
Target profiles
Run ID: a2645253-b4a0-496f-ab44-748b80f8e6b2

Baseline: 57b1ae5
Comparison: 5cfabc0
Diff

Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf experiment goal Δ mean % Δ mean % CI trials links
quality_gate_idle_all_features memory utilization +3.06 [+2.94, +3.18] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
basic_py_check % cpu utilization +2.77 [-1.02, +6.57] 1 Logs
quality_gate_logs % cpu utilization +1.41 [-1.56, +4.38] 1 Logs
uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu % cpu utilization +1.24 [+0.49, +1.99] 1 Logs
otel_to_otel_logs ingress throughput +1.19 [+0.54, +1.85] 1 Logs
pycheck_lots_of_tags % cpu utilization +0.94 [-2.49, +4.37] 1 Logs
tcp_syslog_to_blackhole ingress throughput +0.86 [+0.80, +0.93] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency egress throughput +0.40 [-0.24, +1.03] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency egress throughput +0.19 [-0.58, +0.97] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load egress throughput +0.09 [-0.37, +0.55] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency egress throughput +0.03 [-0.77, +0.83] 1 Logs
uds_dogstatsd_to_api ingress throughput +0.01 [-0.09, +0.11] 1 Logs
tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude ingress throughput -0.00 [-0.01, +0.01] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency egress throughput -0.00 [-0.68, +0.67] 1 Logs
quality_gate_idle memory utilization -0.05 [-0.09, +0.00] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency egress throughput -0.05 [-0.83, +0.72] 1 Logs
file_tree memory utilization -0.09 [-0.24, +0.06] 1 Logs

Bounds Checks: ❌ Failed

perf experiment bounds_check_name replicates_passed links
file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency lost_bytes 9/10
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency lost_bytes 10/10
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency memory_usage 10/10
file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency memory_usage 10/10
file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load 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_300ms_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 memory_usage 10/10 bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_idle_all_features memory_usage 10/10 bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_logs lost_bytes 10/10
quality_gate_logs memory_usage 10/10

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:

  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".

CI Pass/Fail Decision

Passed. All Quality Gates passed.

  • quality_gate_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_logs, bounds check lost_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.

@paulcacheux
Copy link
Contributor

/merge

@dd-devflow
Copy link

dd-devflow bot commented Nov 28, 2024

Devflow running: /merge

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.


2024-11-28 18:55:21 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: pull request added to the queue

The median merge time in main is 24m.

@dd-mergequeue dd-mergequeue bot merged commit 08b90d2 into main Nov 28, 2024
253 checks passed
@dd-mergequeue dd-mergequeue bot deleted the lebauce/containerutils-sbom-resolver branch November 28, 2024 19:20
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
changelog/no-changelog component/system-probe medium review PR review might take time qa/no-code-change No code change in Agent code requiring validation team/agent-security
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants