Skip to content
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

Standalone billing features, scenarios and tests reorg #4216

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

daniel-romano-DD
Copy link
Contributor

Motivation

Standalone billing feature naming was confusing. the V2 is meant to be the official first release, while the previous V1 was an experimental feature.

Changes

Renamed original standalone billing as Experimental, and the new V2 as no suffix or prefix.

Workflow

  1. ⚠️ Create your PR as draft ⚠️
  2. Work on you PR until the CI passes (if something not related to your task is failing, you can ignore it)
  3. Mark it as ready for review
    • Test logic is modified? -> Get a review from RFC owner. We're working on refining the codeowners file quickly.
    • Framework is modified, or non obvious usage of it -> get a review from R&P team

🚀 Once your PR is reviewed, you can merge it!

🛟 #apm-shared-testing 🛟

Reviewer checklist

  • If PR title starts with [<language>], double-check that only <language> is impacted by the change
  • No system-tests internal is modified. Otherwise, I have the approval from R&P team
  • CI is green, or failing jobs are not related to this change (and you are 100% sure about this statement)
  • A docker base image is modified?
    • the relevant build-XXX-image label is present
  • A scenario is added (or removed)?

@daniel-romano-DD daniel-romano-DD requested review from a team as code owners February 28, 2025 10:01
@daniel-romano-DD daniel-romano-DD requested review from smola, manuel-alvarez-alvarez and zacharycmontoya and removed request for a team February 28, 2025 10:01
@@ -2056,7 +2056,7 @@ def iast_standalone_v2(test_object):
return test_object

@staticmethod
def sca_standalone(test_object):
def sca_standalone_experimental(test_object):
"""SCA Standalone Billing
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
"""SCA Standalone Billing
"""Experimental SCA Standalone Billing

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Fixed

@@ -808,6 +808,7 @@ tests/:
'*': v1.45.0
spring-boot-3-native: missing_feature (GraalVM. Tracing support only)
# SQLi was introduced in v1.38.0 (with RASP disabled by default, but was flaky)

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Unnecessary?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It's from the linter...

@@ -201,6 +201,7 @@ tests/:
Test_Parametric_DDTrace_Current_Span: incomplete_test_app (current_span endpoint is not implemented)
Test_Parametric_DDTrace_Extract_Headers: v1.0.1.dev
# cpp tracer does not support the OpenTelemetry API, otel parametric endpoints are not implemented

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Unnecessary?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This one also (./format.sh)

Copy link
Member

@jandro996 jandro996 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM! I've left some minor comments

appsec_standalone_v2 = EndToEndScenario(
"APPSEC_STANDALONE_V2",
appsec_standalone_experimental = EndToEndScenario(
"APPSEC_STANDALONE_EXPERIMENTAL",
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Renaming scenario is dangerous, you need to crawl all CI to verify that they do not refer to it, and update them if needed.

Two good enough solution for that issue :

  • do not rename scenarios : it's just names
  • rename, but handle in run.sh legacy names , see line 378

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants