feat(release): Set gitconfig before git write operations #32277
Conversation
chouetz
added
changelog/no-changelog
qa/no-code-change
|
Shouldn't this be done at the workflow level rather than in the tasks themselves? |
|
[Fast Unit Tests Report] On pipeline 55776417 (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-devx-help |
Uncompressed package size comparisonComparison with ancestor Diff per package
Decision✅ Passed |
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: 5a71ece Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | +0.70 | [-2.40, +3.79] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.19 | [-0.58, +0.96] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | egress throughput | +0.08 | [-0.39, +0.55] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | +0.07 | [+0.02, +0.11] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | egress throughput | +0.03 | [-0.87, +0.93] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | egress throughput | +0.02 | [-0.87, +0.92] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.02 | [-0.77, +0.80] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.02 | [-0.73, +0.76] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.63, +0.64] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.90, +0.91] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.26, +0.26] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.01, +0.01] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | -0.03 | [-0.09, +0.04] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | -0.40 | [-0.43, -0.36] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | -0.42 | [-0.48, -0.36] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | -0.48 | [-1.35, +0.39] | 1 | Logs |
Bounds Checks: ✅ Passed
| perf | experiment | bounds_check_name | replicates_passed | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | 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 | lost_bytes | 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 | 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 | |
| ✅ | 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:
-
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_all_features, 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_logs, bounds check intake_connections: 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, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
chouetz
force-pushed
the
nschweitzer/gitconfig
branch
from
080c749 to
a7dd125
Compare
chouetz
force-pushed
the
nschweitzer/gitconfig
branch
from
a7dd125 to
5ea6a0f
Compare
@chouquette as discussed, I've done an upstream proposal and I will replace this proposal once this is merged. |
chouetz
force-pushed
the
nschweitzer/gitconfig
branch
from
76d7956 to
ff2ceb4
Compare
Static quality checks ✅Please find below the results from static quality gates Info
|
tasks/release.py
Outdated
| github_run_id = os.environ.get("GITHUB_RUN_ID") | ||
| github_workflow_url = f"{github_server_url}/{GITHUB_REPO_NAME}/actions/runs/{github_run_id}" | ||
|
|
||
| github_workflow_url = f"{os.environ.get('GITHUB_SERVER_URL', 'github.com')}/{GITHUB_REPO_NAME}/actions/runs/{os.environ.get('GITHUB_RUN_ID', '1')}" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
if the bump_integrations_core task isn't run through github actions, this will default to:
github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/actions/runs/1
should we set the url to an empty string ("") when not running in GitHub Actions to avoid confusion?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I just wanted to save a if but you are right this might be misleading
|
/merge |
|
View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.
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.
The median merge time in
|
What does this PR do?
Force
usernameandemailin the git configuration before gitwriteoperations in ci contextMotivation
We need an identification before doing a push (for a tag or a commit) on upstream. Setting it within the code will prevent failures when the actions will be executed in the CI context (as we want to automate all these operations)
Describe how you validated your changes
I will run the create_rc pipeline from my branch
Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
As asked here I prefer to do the operations in the python code just before I need them.
I submitted this alternate solution on the
actions/checkoutupstream to make it more natural in the future.Additional Notes