Skip to content

fix: use correct policy for accessing app key#4644

Merged
gh-worker-dd-mergequeue-cf854d[bot] merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
hannahkm/fix-tokens2
Apr 8, 2026
Merged

fix: use correct policy for accessing app key#4644
gh-worker-dd-mergequeue-cf854d[bot] merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
hannahkm/fix-tokens2

Conversation

@hannahkm

@hannahkm hannahkm commented Apr 8, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

What does this PR do?

Use the correct policy for all system test runs

Motivation

Broken merge queue

Reviewer's Checklist

  • Changed code has unit tests for its functionality at or near 100% coverage.
  • System-Tests covering this feature have been added and enabled with the va.b.c-dev version tag.
  • There is a benchmark for any new code, or changes to existing code.
  • If this interacts with the agent in a new way, a system test has been added.
  • New code is free of linting errors. You can check this by running make lint locally.
  • New code doesn't break existing tests. You can check this by running make test locally.
  • Add an appropriate team label so this PR gets put in the right place for the release notes.
  • All generated files are up to date. You can check this by running make generate locally.
  • Non-trivial go.mod changes, e.g. adding new modules, are reviewed by @DataDog/dd-trace-go-guild. Make sure all nested modules are up to date by running make fix-modules locally.

Unsure? Have a question? Request a review!

@hannahkm
hannahkm marked this pull request as ready for review April 8, 2026 13:26
@hannahkm
hannahkm requested a review from a team as a code owner April 8, 2026 13:27
@datadog-datadog-prod-us1

datadog-datadog-prod-us1 Bot commented Apr 8, 2026 •
edited by datadog-official Bot
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown

✅ Tests

🎉 All green!

❄️ No new flaky tests detected
🧪 All tests passed

🎯 Code Coverage (details)
• Patch Coverage: 100.00%
• Overall Coverage: 60.10%

This comment will be updated automatically if new data arrives.
🔗 Commit SHA: ee6e455 | Docs | Datadog PR Page | Was this helpful? React with 👍/👎 or give us feedback!

@pr-commenter

pr-commenter Bot commented Apr 8, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Benchmarks

Benchmark execution time: 2026-04-08 17:04:21

Comparing candidate commit ee6e455 in PR branch hannahkm/fix-tokens2 with baseline commit e36675b in branch main.

Found 0 performance improvements and 0 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 216 metrics, 8 unstable metrics.

Explanation

This is an A/B test comparing a candidate commit's performance against that of a baseline commit. Performance changes are noted in the tables below as:

  • 🟩 = significantly better candidate vs. baseline
  • 🟥 = significantly worse candidate vs. baseline

We compute a confidence interval (CI) over the relative difference of means between metrics from the candidate and baseline commits, considering the baseline as the reference.

If the CI is entirely outside the configured SIGNIFICANT_IMPACT_THRESHOLD (or the deprecated UNCONFIDENCE_THRESHOLD), the change is considered significant.

Feel free to reach out to #apm-benchmarking-platform on Slack if you have any questions.

More details about the CI and significant changes

You can imagine this CI as a range of values that is likely to contain the true difference of means between the candidate and baseline commits.

CIs of the difference of means are often centered around 0%, because often changes are not that big:

---------------------------------(------|---^--------)-------------------------------->
                              -0.6%    0%  0.3%     +1.2%
                                 |          |        |
         lower bound of the CI --'          |        |
sample mean (center of the CI) -------------'        |
         upper bound of the CI ----------------------'

As described above, a change is considered significant if the CI is entirely outside the configured SIGNIFICANT_IMPACT_THRESHOLD (or the deprecated UNCONFIDENCE_THRESHOLD).

For instance, for an execution time metric, this confidence interval indicates a significantly worse performance:

----------------------------------------|---------|---(---------^---------)---------->
                                       0%        1%  1.3%      2.2%      3.1%
                                                  |   |         |         |
       significant impact threshold --------------'   |         |         |
                      lower bound of CI --------------'         |         |
       sample mean (center of the CI) --------------------------'         |
                      upper bound of CI ----------------------------------'

@codecov

codecov Bot commented Apr 8, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 60.71%. Comparing base (e36675b) to head (ee6e455).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

see 440 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

@gh-worker-dd-mergequeue-cf854d
gh-worker-dd-mergequeue-cf854d Bot merged commit 0e06d9c into main Apr 8, 2026
184 checks passed
@gh-worker-dd-mergequeue-cf854d
gh-worker-dd-mergequeue-cf854d Bot deleted the hannahkm/fix-tokens2 branch April 8, 2026 17:19
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@eliottness eliottness eliottness approved these changes

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

mergequeue-status: done

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@hannahkm @eliottness