Skip to content

Fix Go linter for SGC on AIX#53264

Merged
gh-worker-dd-mergequeue-cf854d[bot] merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
pgimalac/aix-secret-connector-fix
Jul 7, 2026
Merged

Fix Go linter for SGC on AIX#53264
gh-worker-dd-mergequeue-cf854d[bot] merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
pgimalac/aix-secret-connector-fix

Conversation

@pgimalac

@pgimalac pgimalac commented Jul 6, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

What does this PR do?

Adds //go:build !aix to cmd/secret-generic-connector/backend/hashicorp/vault_test.go.

Motivation

Caught by cross-linting with GOOS=aix GOARCH=ppc64 (see #53214). The test file imports github.com/hashicorp/vault/http, which transitively depends on github.com/hashicorp/go-secure-stdlib/mlock. That package is missing an implementation for AIX (clearly forgotten in build tags list), so it doesn't compile.

Describe how you validated your changes

GOOS=aix GOARCH=ppc64 dda inv linter.go --targets=./cmd/secret-generic-connector/...

Additional notes

Opened hashicorp/go-secure-stdlib#187 to fix the compilation issue upstream

@pgimalac pgimalac added changelog/no-changelog No changelog entry needed qa/done QA done before merge and regressions are covered by tests labels Jul 6, 2026
@dd-octo-sts dd-octo-sts Bot added the internal Identify a non-fork PR label Jul 6, 2026
@github-actions github-actions Bot added the short review PR is simple enough to be reviewed quickly label Jul 6, 2026
@pgimalac pgimalac changed the title fix(aix): exclude vault_test.go on AIX (hashicorp mlock not supported) Fix linting SGC on AIX Jul 6, 2026
@pgimalac pgimalac changed the title Fix linting SGC on AIX Fix Go linter for SGC on AIX Jul 6, 2026
chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]

This comment was marked as outdated.

@datadog-prod-us1-3

datadog-prod-us1-3 Bot commented Jul 6, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

🎯 Code Coverage (details)
Patch Coverage: 100.00%
Overall Coverage: 51.45% (+0.13%)

This comment will be updated automatically if new data arrives.
🔗 Commit SHA: 824bd17 | Docs | Datadog PR Page | Give us feedback!

@dd-octo-sts

dd-octo-sts Bot commented Jul 6, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Files inventory check summary

File checks results against ancestor daecc708:

Results for datadog-agent_7.82.0~devel.git.686.824bd17.pipeline.123220453-1_amd64.deb:

No change detected

@dd-octo-sts

dd-octo-sts Bot commented Jul 6, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Static quality checks

✅ Please find below the results from static quality gates
Comparison made with ancestor daecc70
📊 Static Quality Gates Dashboard
🔗 SQG Job

32 successful checks with minimal change (< 2 KiB)
Quality gate Current Size
agent_deb_amd64 749.504 MiB
agent_deb_amd64_fips 704.509 MiB
agent_heroku_amd64 307.951 MiB
agent_rpm_amd64 749.488 MiB
agent_rpm_amd64_fips 704.493 MiB
agent_rpm_arm64 724.776 MiB
agent_rpm_arm64_fips 683.497 MiB
agent_suse_amd64 749.488 MiB
agent_suse_amd64_fips 704.493 MiB
agent_suse_arm64 724.776 MiB
agent_suse_arm64_fips 683.497 MiB
docker_agent_amd64 808.262 MiB
docker_agent_arm64 808.566 MiB
docker_agent_jmx_amd64 999.160 MiB
docker_agent_jmx_arm64 988.116 MiB
docker_cluster_agent_amd64 209.369 MiB
docker_cluster_agent_arm64 222.451 MiB
docker_cws_instrumentation_amd64 7.447 MiB
docker_cws_instrumentation_arm64 6.877 MiB
docker_dogstatsd_amd64 39.145 MiB
docker_dogstatsd_arm64 37.305 MiB
docker_host_profiler_amd64 302.478 MiB
docker_host_profiler_arm64 314.025 MiB
dogstatsd_deb_amd64 29.880 MiB
dogstatsd_deb_arm64 27.920 MiB
dogstatsd_rpm_amd64 29.880 MiB
dogstatsd_suse_amd64 29.880 MiB
iot_agent_deb_amd64 45.825 MiB
iot_agent_deb_arm64 42.528 MiB
iot_agent_deb_armhf 43.309 MiB
iot_agent_rpm_amd64 45.826 MiB
iot_agent_suse_amd64 45.825 MiB

@cit-pr-commenter-54b7da

cit-pr-commenter-54b7da Bot commented Jul 6, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Metrics dashboard
Target profiles
Run ID: ebd3cedb-a825-42a7-8324-a6431c2316f9

Baseline: 4cfa637
Comparison: 6102264
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 +1.65 [+0.57, +2.74] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_metrics_logs memory utilization +0.70 [+0.45, +0.95] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_idle_all_features memory utilization +0.46 [+0.42, +0.49] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_security_mean_fs_load memory utilization +0.31 [+0.27, +0.35] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_idle memory utilization +0.13 [+0.08, +0.18] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_security_idle memory utilization -0.23 [-0.29, -0.17] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_security_no_fs_load memory utilization -0.31 [-0.41, -0.21] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard

Bounds Checks: ✅ Passed

perf experiment bounds_check_name replicates_passed observed_value links
quality_gate_idle intake_connections 10/10 3 ≤ 4 bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_idle memory_usage 10/10 148.30MiB ≤ 154MiB bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_idle total_bytes_received 10/10 577.68KiB ≤ 819.20KiB bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_idle_all_features intake_connections 10/10 3 ≤ 4 bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_idle_all_features memory_usage 10/10 486.00MiB ≤ 495MiB bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_idle_all_features total_bytes_received 10/10 0.89MiB ≤ 1.25MiB bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_logs intake_connections 10/10 3 ≤ 6 bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_logs memory_usage 10/10 180.64MiB ≤ 195MiB bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_logs missed_bytes 10/10 0B = 0B bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_logs total_bytes_received 10/10 264.18MiB ≤ 292MiB bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_metrics_logs cpu_usage 10/10 340.87 ≤ 2000 bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_metrics_logs intake_connections 10/10 3 ≤ 6 bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_metrics_logs memory_usage 10/10 396.50MiB ≤ 430MiB bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_metrics_logs missed_bytes 10/10 0B = 0B bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_metrics_logs total_bytes_received 10/10 0.86GiB ≤ 1.04GiB bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_security_idle cpu_usage 10/10 28.56 ≤ 40 bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_security_idle memory_usage 10/10 296.83MiB ≤ 330MiB bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_security_mean_fs_load cpu_usage 10/10 61.20 ≤ 80 bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_security_mean_fs_load memory_usage 10/10 274.78MiB ≤ 310MiB bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_security_no_fs_load cpu_usage 10/10 23.30 ≤ 40 bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_security_no_fs_load memory_usage 10/10 277.84MiB ≤ 320MiB 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:

  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".

Replicate Execution Details

We run multiple replicates for each experiment/variant. However, we allow replicates to be automatically retried if there are any failures, up to 8 times, at which point the replicate is marked dead and we are unable to run analysis for the entire experiment. We call each of these attempts at running replicates a replicate execution. This section lists all replicate executions that failed due to the target crashing or being oom killed.

Note: In the below tables we bucket failures by experiment, variant, and failure type. For each of these buckets we list out the replicate indexes that failed with an annotation signifying how many times said replicate failed with the given failure mode. In the below example the baseline variant of the experiment named experiment_with_failures had two replicates that failed by oom kills. Replicate 0, which failed 8 executions, and replicate 1 which failed 6 executions, all with the same failure mode.

Experiment Variant Replicates Failure Logs Debug Dashboard
experiment_with_failures baseline 0 (x8) 1 (x6) Oom killed Debug Dashboard

The debug dashboard links will take you to a debugging dashboard specifically designed to investigate replicate execution failures.

❌ Retried Profiling Replicate Execution Failures (ddprof)

Note: Profiling replicas may still be executing. See the debug dashboard for up to date status.

Experiment Variant Replicates Failure Debug Dashboard
quality_gate_idle_all_features comparison 10 Oom killed Debug Dashboard
quality_gate_logs baseline 10 Oom killed Debug Dashboard
quality_gate_metrics_logs comparison 10 Oom killed Debug Dashboard
quality_gate_security_no_fs_load baseline 10 Oom killed Debug Dashboard

CI Pass/Fail Decision

Passed. All Quality Gates passed.

  • quality_gate_security_mean_fs_load, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_security_mean_fs_load, bounds check cpu_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_logs, bounds check total_bytes_received: 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 missed_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check missed_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_metrics_logs, 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 cpu_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check total_bytes_received: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_idle, bounds check total_bytes_received: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_idle, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_security_no_fs_load, bounds check cpu_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_security_no_fs_load, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_security_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_security_idle, bounds check cpu_usage: 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_idle_all_features, bounds check total_bytes_received: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.

@pgimalac pgimalac marked this pull request as ready for review July 7, 2026 07:09
@pgimalac pgimalac requested review from a team as code owners July 7, 2026 07:09
@pgimalac pgimalac requested a review from hush-hush July 7, 2026 07:09

@hush-hush hush-hush left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can we add a comment explaining why we don't test vault for AIX ?

@pgimalac

pgimalac commented Jul 7, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@hush-hush yeah definitely

@pgimalac pgimalac force-pushed the pgimalac/aix-secret-connector-fix branch from 18e5b1a to 7a413c3 Compare July 7, 2026 09:06
@github-actions github-actions Bot added medium review PR review might take time and removed short review PR is simple enough to be reviewed quickly labels Jul 7, 2026
@pgimalac

pgimalac commented Jul 7, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

/merge

@gh-worker-devflow-routing-ef8351

gh-worker-devflow-routing-ef8351 Bot commented Jul 7, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.

2026-07-07 10:42:52 UTC ℹ️ Start processing command /merge


2026-07-07 10:42:55 UTC ❌ MergeQueue

PR already in the queue with status waiting

@gh-worker-dd-mergequeue-cf854d gh-worker-dd-mergequeue-cf854d Bot merged commit 6102264 into main Jul 7, 2026
255 checks passed
@gh-worker-dd-mergequeue-cf854d gh-worker-dd-mergequeue-cf854d Bot deleted the pgimalac/aix-secret-connector-fix branch July 7, 2026 13:02
@github-actions github-actions Bot added this to the 7.82.0 milestone Jul 7, 2026
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 internal Identify a non-fork PR medium review PR review might take time qa/done QA done before merge and regressions are covered by tests team/agent-build team/agent-configuration

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants