-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 476
chore(runtime_metrics): process tags was not a list #15580
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
Conversation
|
|
Bootstrap import analysisComparison of import times between this PR and base. SummaryThe average import time from this PR is: 210 ± 2 ms. The average import time from base is: 212 ± 2 ms. The import time difference between this PR and base is: -1.7 ± 0.1 ms. Import time breakdownThe following import paths have shrunk:
|
Performance SLOsComparing candidate dubloom/fix-runtime-metrics (61c503b) with baseline main (88a556c) 📈 Performance Regressions (2 suites)📈 iastaspectsospath - 24/24✅ ospathbasename_aspectTime: ✅ 5.031µs (SLO: <10.000µs 📉 -49.7%) vs baseline: 📈 +18.8% Memory: ✅ 38.692MB (SLO: <41.000MB -5.6%) vs baseline: +5.2% ✅ ospathbasename_noaspectTime: ✅ 1.085µs (SLO: <10.000µs 📉 -89.2%) vs baseline: +0.8% Memory: ✅ 38.594MB (SLO: <41.000MB -5.9%) vs baseline: +4.8% ✅ ospathjoin_aspectTime: ✅ 6.039µs (SLO: <10.000µs 📉 -39.6%) vs baseline: +0.3% Memory: ✅ 38.653MB (SLO: <41.000MB -5.7%) vs baseline: +4.8% ✅ ospathjoin_noaspectTime: ✅ 2.303µs (SLO: <10.000µs 📉 -77.0%) vs baseline: +0.4% Memory: ✅ 38.614MB (SLO: <41.000MB -5.8%) vs baseline: +4.9% ✅ ospathnormcase_aspectTime: ✅ 3.468µs (SLO: <10.000µs 📉 -65.3%) vs baseline: -0.6% Memory: ✅ 38.535MB (SLO: <41.000MB -6.0%) vs baseline: +5.0% ✅ ospathnormcase_noaspectTime: ✅ 0.574µs (SLO: <10.000µs 📉 -94.3%) vs baseline: ~same Memory: ✅ 38.614MB (SLO: <41.000MB -5.8%) vs baseline: +5.0% ✅ ospathsplit_aspectTime: ✅ 4.812µs (SLO: <10.000µs 📉 -51.9%) vs baseline: -0.4% Memory: ✅ 38.692MB (SLO: <41.000MB -5.6%) vs baseline: +5.1% ✅ ospathsplit_noaspectTime: ✅ 1.595µs (SLO: <10.000µs 📉 -84.1%) vs baseline: +0.1% Memory: ✅ 38.633MB (SLO: <41.000MB -5.8%) vs baseline: +5.1% ✅ ospathsplitdrive_aspectTime: ✅ 3.752µs (SLO: <10.000µs 📉 -62.5%) vs baseline: +1.0% Memory: ✅ 38.633MB (SLO: <41.000MB -5.8%) vs baseline: +5.0% ✅ ospathsplitdrive_noaspectTime: ✅ 0.699µs (SLO: <10.000µs 📉 -93.0%) vs baseline: -0.8% Memory: ✅ 38.614MB (SLO: <41.000MB -5.8%) vs baseline: +5.0% ✅ ospathsplitext_aspectTime: ✅ 4.628µs (SLO: <10.000µs 📉 -53.7%) vs baseline: +0.6% Memory: ✅ 38.653MB (SLO: <41.000MB -5.7%) vs baseline: +5.1% ✅ ospathsplitext_noaspectTime: ✅ 1.374µs (SLO: <10.000µs 📉 -86.3%) vs baseline: -0.9% Memory: ✅ 38.594MB (SLO: <41.000MB -5.9%) vs baseline: +4.8% 📈 telemetryaddmetric - 30/30✅ 1-count-metric-1-timesTime: ✅ 3.615µs (SLO: <20.000µs 📉 -81.9%) vs baseline: 📈 +16.1% Memory: ✅ 34.898MB (SLO: <35.500MB 🟡 -1.7%) vs baseline: +5.0% ✅ 1-count-metrics-100-timesTime: ✅ 208.745µs (SLO: <220.000µs -5.1%) vs baseline: +0.5% Memory: ✅ 34.878MB (SLO: <35.500MB 🟡 -1.8%) vs baseline: +5.0% ✅ 1-distribution-metric-1-timesTime: ✅ 3.463µs (SLO: <20.000µs 📉 -82.7%) vs baseline: -0.1% Memory: ✅ 34.898MB (SLO: <35.500MB 🟡 -1.7%) vs baseline: +4.8% ✅ 1-distribution-metrics-100-timesTime: ✅ 218.632µs (SLO: <230.000µs -4.9%) vs baseline: -0.7% Memory: ✅ 34.878MB (SLO: <35.500MB 🟡 -1.8%) vs baseline: +5.0% ✅ 1-gauge-metric-1-timesTime: ✅ 2.293µs (SLO: <20.000µs 📉 -88.5%) vs baseline: -0.8% Memory: ✅ 34.898MB (SLO: <35.500MB 🟡 -1.7%) vs baseline: +5.0% ✅ 1-gauge-metrics-100-timesTime: ✅ 138.058µs (SLO: <150.000µs -8.0%) vs baseline: +0.3% Memory: ✅ 34.800MB (SLO: <35.500MB 🟡 -2.0%) vs baseline: +4.8% ✅ 1-rate-metric-1-timesTime: ✅ 3.266µs (SLO: <20.000µs 📉 -83.7%) vs baseline: -0.5% Memory: ✅ 34.878MB (SLO: <35.500MB 🟡 -1.8%) vs baseline: +5.0% ✅ 1-rate-metrics-100-timesTime: ✅ 220.651µs (SLO: <250.000µs 📉 -11.7%) vs baseline: -0.3% Memory: ✅ 34.721MB (SLO: <35.500MB -2.2%) vs baseline: +4.6% ✅ 100-count-metrics-100-timesTime: ✅ 20.981ms (SLO: <22.000ms -4.6%) vs baseline: +0.4% Memory: ✅ 34.859MB (SLO: <35.500MB 🟡 -1.8%) vs baseline: +5.0% ✅ 100-distribution-metrics-100-timesTime: ✅ 2.322ms (SLO: <2.550ms -8.9%) vs baseline: +1.3% Memory: ✅ 34.760MB (SLO: <35.500MB -2.1%) vs baseline: +4.4% ✅ 100-gauge-metrics-100-timesTime: ✅ 1.428ms (SLO: <1.550ms -7.9%) vs baseline: +0.9% Memory: ✅ 34.859MB (SLO: <35.500MB 🟡 -1.8%) vs baseline: +5.1% ✅ 100-rate-metrics-100-timesTime: ✅ 2.265ms (SLO: <2.550ms 📉 -11.2%) vs baseline: -0.5% Memory: ✅ 34.898MB (SLO: <35.500MB 🟡 -1.7%) vs baseline: +5.0% ✅ flush-1-metricTime: ✅ 4.657µs (SLO: <20.000µs 📉 -76.7%) vs baseline: -0.7% Memory: ✅ 34.957MB (SLO: <35.500MB 🟡 -1.5%) vs baseline: +4.4% ✅ flush-100-metricsTime: ✅ 176.133µs (SLO: <250.000µs 📉 -29.5%) vs baseline: +0.3% Memory: ✅ 35.193MB (SLO: <35.500MB 🟡 -0.9%) vs baseline: +4.7% ✅ flush-1000-metricsTime: ✅ 2.178ms (SLO: <2.500ms 📉 -12.9%) vs baseline: +0.2% Memory: ✅ 36.038MB (SLO: <36.500MB 🟡 -1.3%) vs baseline: +4.6% 🟡 Near SLO Breach (17 suites)🟡 coreapiscenario - 10/10 (1 unstable)
|
A RuntimeCollectorsIterable needs to be iterated upon to collect its tags.
Therefore,
ProcessTagswas an object which was breaking runtime metrics.This PR fixes it and add a test to ensure the issue will not happen again