-
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
Start dropping python2 support #30035
Conversation
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsRun ID: 8fa7ba51-edb2-4636-b05a-46f0c8360bce Metrics dashboard Target profiles Baseline: 5f34bad 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 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | +3.06 | [+2.32, +3.79] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | pycheck_lots_of_tags | % cpu utilization | +0.78 | [-1.75, +3.31] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | +0.61 | [+0.48, +0.73] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | idle | memory utilization | +0.37 | [+0.33, +0.41] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | +0.26 | [+0.22, +0.31] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.24 | [-0.25, +0.73] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | idle_all_features | memory utilization | +0.18 | [+0.08, +0.28] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.06 | [-0.19, +0.30] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.07, +0.08] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.01, +0.01] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.34, +0.32] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.24, +0.21] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | otel_to_otel_logs | ingress throughput | -0.05 | [-0.86, +0.76] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.07 | [-0.25, +0.11] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | -0.12 | [-0.20, -0.05] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | basic_py_check | % cpu utilization | -0.16 | [-2.92, +2.60] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | -0.54 | [-0.64, -0.44] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
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 |
✅ | idle_all_features | memory_usage | 10/10 |
✅ | quality_gate_idle | memory_usage | 10/10 |
✅ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | 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".
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.
Good job! Added minor suggestions
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.
There's some diff issue & the PR is missing the changes to the Python compression & decompression in the MSI installer.
tools/windows/DatadogAgentInstaller/WixSetup/Datadog Agent/AgentInstaller.cs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
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 have a suggestion for the tasks code
I think I addressed this now, but if not I might need a few more pointers/help |
80ee5b4
to
01e489b
Compare
Gitlab CI Configuration Changes
|
Removed | Modified | Added | Renamed |
---|---|---|---|
0 | 56 | 0 | 0 |
ℹ️ Diff available in the job log.
There is still code that perform decompression of Python 2 left in the installer, see https://github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/blob/main/tools/windows/DatadogAgentInstaller/CustomActions/PythonDistributionCustomAction.cs#L137
|
01e489b
to
d74dbec
Compare
rtloader/README.md
Outdated
be loaded at runtime. Under the hood the library provides `RtLoader`, a C++ interface | ||
that must be implemented by any supported backend, see `include/rtloader.h` for details. | ||
|
||
### Two and Three | ||
|
||
`libdatadog-agent-three` and `libdatadog-agent-two` libraries provide Python support | ||
for extending and embedding by linking different versions of the CPython library. | ||
`libdatadog-agent-two` library provides Python3 support. Python2 isn't supported anymore. |
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.
`libdatadog-agent-two` library provides Python3 support. Python2 isn't supported anymore. | |
`libdatadog-agent-three` library provides Python3 support. Python2 isn't supported anymore. |
rtloader/README.md
Outdated
@@ -15,14 +15,13 @@ RtLoader will `dlopen` the proper backend libraries accordingly. | |||
### libdatadog-agent-rtloader | |||
|
|||
RtLoader exposes its C89-compatible API through `include/datadog_agent_rtloader.h`. By | |||
using the `make2` and `make3` functions, the corresponding Python backend will | |||
using the `make3` function, the corresponding Python backend will | |||
be loaded at runtime. Under the hood the library provides `RtLoader`, a C++ interface | |||
that must be implemented by any supported backend, see `include/rtloader.h` for details. | |||
|
|||
### Two and Three |
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.
Should we remove this header?
Test changes on VMUse this command from test-infra-definitions to manually test this PR changes on a VM: inv create-vm --pipeline-id=46518099 --os-family=ubuntu Note: This applies to commit aa96c86 |
pkg/collector/python/init.go
Outdated
@@ -361,7 +350,7 @@ func resolvePythonExecPath(pythonVersion string, ignoreErrors bool) (string, err | |||
// don't want to use the default version (aka "python") but rather "python2" or | |||
// "python3" based on the configuration. Also on some Python3 platforms there | |||
// are no "python" aliases either. | |||
interpreterBasename := "python" + pythonVersion | |||
interpreterBasename := "python3" |
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.
Should we move this to a constant?
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.
That sounds sensible to do, although I'd rather let someone from the owning team do so (it might also be worth waiting a bit for other variables such as Python2/3_HOME to be removed as well
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.
Thanks for doing this 🎉
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.
LGTM
703ae1b
to
725b9a7
Compare
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.
Approved for the file we (cws) own
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.
Not a blocker because I think we have other places which mention Py2, but there's at least one in the Getting started
section, in the requirements. Feel free to update it in a follow-up PR!
725b9a7
to
aa96c86
Compare
aa96c86
to
8ce88a9
Compare
/merge |
🚂 MergeQueue: waiting for PR to be ready This merge request is not mergeable yet, because of pending checks/missing approvals. It will be added to the queue as soon as checks pass and/or get approvals. Use |
[Fast Unit Tests Report] On pipeline 47595959 (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 |
🚂 MergeQueue: pull request added to the queue The median merge time in Use |
What does this PR do?
Start dropping python2 as we don't ship it with the agent anymore.
It handles:
Motivation
We don't need to clutter the code with various parameters or branches for something we don't support anymore.
There are most likely some missing pieces and a lot of remaining references to python2, but this serves as a good starting point
Describe how to test/QA your changes
I'm not sure this needs dedicated QA as long as the CI still passes since we're only removing code, but since the change is large, I can definitely convinced otherwise
Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
Additional Notes
This is probably better review commit by commit. The changes should be very close to atomic, and things can be split out in multiple PRs if we chose to.
Associated PRs: