- Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.4k
new-e2e-containers:TestContainerLifecycleEvents: make pod selection more robust #43727
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Static quality checks✅ Please find below the results from static quality gates Successful checksInfo
|
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: 67324f0 Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected |
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ➖ | docker_containers_cpu | % cpu utilization | +1.13 | [-1.80, +4.07] | 1 | Logs |
Fine details of change detection per experiment
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ➖ | otlp_ingest_logs | memory utilization | +1.25 | [+1.14, +1.35] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | docker_containers_cpu | % cpu utilization | +1.13 | [-1.80, +4.07] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | ddot_logs | memory utilization | +0.88 | [+0.81, +0.95] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | otlp_ingest_metrics | memory utilization | +0.53 | [+0.39, +0.67] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | ddot_metrics | memory utilization | +0.50 | [+0.29, +0.72] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | +0.33 | [+0.28, +0.39] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | ddot_metrics_sum_cumulativetodelta_exporter | memory utilization | +0.32 | [+0.08, +0.56] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | +0.25 | [+0.20, +0.30] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | docker_containers_memory | memory utilization | +0.15 | [+0.06, +0.24] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | ddot_metrics_sum_delta | memory utilization | +0.10 | [-0.11, +0.32] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.04 | [-0.37, +0.45] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.01 | [-0.39, +0.41] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_v3 | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.12, +0.13] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.07, +0.07] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.15, +0.13] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.07, +0.04] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_20mb_12k_contexts_20_senders | memory utilization | -0.01 | [-0.07, +0.04] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.06 | [-0.42, +0.31] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | -0.11 | [-0.15, -0.06] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | ddot_metrics_sum_cumulative | memory utilization | -0.12 | [-0.27, +0.03] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | -0.28 | [-1.72, +1.16] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | memory utilization | -0.36 | [-0.58, -0.14] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | -0.69 | [-0.76, -0.62] | 1 | Logs |
Bounds Checks: ✅ Passed
| perf | experiment | bounds_check_name | replicates_passed | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ✅ | docker_containers_cpu | simple_check_run | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | docker_containers_memory | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | docker_containers_memory | simple_check_run | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | 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_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 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_logs | lost_bytes | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_logs | memory_usage | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | cpu_usage | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | intake_connections | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | lost_bytes | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | memory_usage | 10/10 | 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:
-
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_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_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 intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_metrics_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.
- quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check intake_connections: 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.
| return | ||
| } | ||
| | ||
| nginxPod = candidatePod |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think your proposal makes sense, but then why not iterate (still favoring the oldest pod) rather than considering only one?
What does this PR do?
Tries to make the
TestContainerLifecycleEventstest more robust by checking that the agent has seen the candidate pod before making assertions on its lifecycle events.Motivation
This test flakes sometimes (example, history of failures on main).
Describe how you validated your changes
It's hard to assess whether this solves the issue, as the frequency of the flake is fairly low, but if CI is green, it should at least not have broken anything.
Additional Notes
I'm not familiar with the code at hand, so it's possible that I'm way off base with this one.