-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
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
Move testing related function to a dedicated lib + move unit tests #30017
Conversation
[Fast Unit Tests Report] On pipeline 46373334 (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 |
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsRun ID: d9302639-6dd6-4398-a559-5a4ec1bebb64 Metrics dashboard Target profiles Baseline: 521bc73 Performance changes are noted in the perf column of each table:
No significant changes in experiment optimization goalsConfidence level: 90.00% There were no significant changes in experiment optimization goals at this confidence level and effect size tolerance.
|
perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
➖ | pycheck_lots_of_tags | % cpu utilization | +2.12 | [-0.32, +4.56] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | basic_py_check | % cpu utilization | +0.48 | [-2.16, +3.11] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | otel_to_otel_logs | ingress throughput | +0.30 | [-0.51, +1.11] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | idle | memory utilization | +0.07 | [+0.02, +0.11] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | +0.02 | [-0.04, +0.08] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.02 | [-0.23, +0.26] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.01 | [-0.18, +0.21] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.01, +0.01] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.11, +0.10] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.02 | [-0.35, +0.31] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.02 | [-0.25, +0.20] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.10 | [-0.59, +0.40] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | -0.42 | [-0.56, -0.29] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | idle_all_features | memory utilization | -0.67 | [-0.79, -0.54] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | -1.46 | [-2.18, -0.74] | 1 | Logs |
Bounds Checks
perf | experiment | bounds_check_name | replicates_passed |
---|---|---|---|
✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 |
✅ | idle | memory_usage | 10/10 |
Explanation
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".
/merge |
🚂 MergeQueue: pull request added to the queue The median merge time in Use |
What does this PR do?
Move some method of the testwasher to a dedicated
testing/flakes.py
file, so that it can be reused elsewhere easily.Use
is_known_flaky_test
method when determining the tag we put on junit uploads.So we know that the logic for the test tagging is the same as the logic we use in testwasher to determine that a test is known as flaky
Motivation
Make sure tagging is more robust so the workflow does not notify test failure on already known flakes
Describe how to test/QA your changes
Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
Additional Notes