Skip to content

Add /dd_tracer/node/node_modules to NODE_PATH for serverless-init#33589

Merged
dd-mergequeue[bot] merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
duncan-harvey/serverless-init-node-path
Jan 30, 2025
Merged

Add /dd_tracer/node/node_modules to NODE_PATH for serverless-init#33589
dd-mergequeue[bot] merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
duncan-harvey/serverless-init-node-path

Conversation

@duncanpharvey

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

What does this PR do?

Appends /dd_tracer/node/node_modules to NODE_PATH for serverless-init.

Motivation

Documentation for Node was updated to use a different installation directory for the Datadog Tracer. DataDog/documentation#24660

https://docs.datadoghq.com/serverless/guide/gcr_serverless_init/?code-lang=nodejs
Instructions before update:

COPY --from=datadog/dd-lib-js-init /operator-build/node_modules /dd_tracer/node/

Instructions after update (current):

RUN npm install --prefix /dd_tracer/node dd-trace  --save

Describe how you validated your changes

  • Automated test to assert NODE_PATH has both /dd_tracer/node and /dd_tracer/node/node_modules appended.
  • Built serverless-init locally and followed Dockerfile instructions to instrument a Node Express app and confirm Datadog Tracer is found via the NODE_PATH
    • Installed Datadog Tracer using legacy instructions: COPY --from=datadog/dd-lib-js-init /operator-build/node_modules /dd_tracer/node/
    • Installed Datadog Tracer using current instructions: RUN npm install --prefix /dd_tracer/node dd-trace --save

Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs

Additional Notes

@duncanpharvey duncanpharvey added changelog/no-changelog No changelog entry needed team/serverless-azure-gcp qa/done QA done before merge and regressions are covered by tests labels Jan 30, 2025
@duncanpharvey
duncanpharvey requested a review from a team as a code owner January 30, 2025 16:21
@github-actions github-actions Bot added the short review PR is simple enough to be reviewed quickly label Jan 30, 2025
@cit-pr-commenter

cit-pr-commenter Bot commented Jan 30, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Metrics dashboard
Target profiles
Run ID: 75822731-259a-4e58-8d7b-160b87250650

Baseline: 84718df
Comparison: 84718df
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_logs % cpu utilization +3.82 [+0.70, +6.94] 1 Logs
uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu % cpu utilization +0.36 [-0.52, +1.23] 1 Logs
tcp_syslog_to_blackhole ingress throughput +0.21 [+0.13, +0.29] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency egress throughput +0.11 [-0.67, +0.89] 1 Logs
quality_gate_idle_all_features memory utilization +0.06 [-0.03, +0.15] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude ingress throughput +0.01 [-0.02, +0.04] 1 Logs
uds_dogstatsd_to_api ingress throughput -0.01 [-0.30, +0.27] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency egress throughput -0.02 [-0.66, +0.62] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency egress throughput -0.04 [-0.75, +0.67] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency egress throughput -0.04 [-0.84, +0.77] 1 Logs
file_tree memory utilization -0.04 [-0.11, +0.03] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 egress throughput -0.05 [-0.91, +0.80] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 egress throughput -0.07 [-0.90, +0.76] 1 Logs
quality_gate_idle memory utilization -0.12 [-0.18, -0.05] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load egress throughput -0.28 [-0.75, +0.18] 1 Logs
file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency egress throughput -0.60 [-1.37, +0.17] 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:

  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_logs, bounds check lost_bytes: 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_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 intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.

@duncanpharvey

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

/merge

@dd-devflow

dd-devflow Bot commented Jan 30, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Devflow running: /merge

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.


2025-01-30 17:22:21 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: pull request added to the queue

The median merge time in main is 26m.


2025-01-30 17:47:22 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: This merge request was merged

@dd-mergequeue
dd-mergequeue Bot merged commit 84718df into main Jan 30, 2025
@dd-mergequeue
dd-mergequeue Bot deleted the duncan-harvey/serverless-init-node-path branch January 30, 2025 17:47
@github-actions github-actions Bot added this to the 7.64.0 milestone Jan 30, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

changelog/no-changelog No changelog entry needed qa/done QA done before merge and regressions are covered by tests short review PR is simple enough to be reviewed quickly team/serverless-azure-gcp

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants