Surface autodiscovery template resolution failures via Agent Health#49452
Surface autodiscovery template resolution failures via Agent Health#49452mwdd146980 wants to merge 2 commits intomainfrom
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 97230cac4f
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".
louis-cqrl
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
small comment but LGTM fir the rest
When an autodiscovered check template contains a variable not supported by the listener (e.g. %%extra_dbinstanceidentifier%% on a Docker listener), the config was silently dropped with only a DEBUG log. This change: - Upgrades the log from DEBUG to ERROR so the failure is visible at default level - Reports the failure as an AD misconfiguration health event (reusing the admisconfig module from PR #48962) with template-resolution-specific remediation steps - Automatically clears the health issue when resolution succeeds Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
97230ca to
6bc4ac7
Compare
Files inventory check summaryFile checks results against ancestor d11522b4: Results for datadog-agent_7.79.0~devel.git.807.3fdf09c.pipeline.108032283-1_amd64.deb:No change detected |
- Include template digest in health issue checkID to prevent collisions when multiple templates with the same check name target the same service. (Codex) - Clear stale health issues in the reconcileService deletion path when a service or template is removed. (Codex) - Note: making healthplatform a required (non-optional) dependency (louis-cqrl feedback) requires adding hostnameinterface.Component to several commands and is deferred to a follow-up PR. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: d11522b Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ➖ | docker_containers_cpu | % cpu utilization | +0.25 | [-2.81, +3.30] | 1 | Logs |
Fine details of change detection per experiment
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | +1.60 | [-0.02, +3.22] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | memory utilization | +1.39 | [+1.16, +1.62] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | ddot_metrics_sum_cumulative | memory utilization | +0.95 | [+0.80, +1.10] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | ddot_metrics_sum_cumulativetodelta_exporter | memory utilization | +0.29 | [+0.07, +0.51] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | docker_containers_cpu | % cpu utilization | +0.25 | [-2.81, +3.30] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | otlp_ingest_metrics | memory utilization | +0.23 | [+0.08, +0.38] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | ddot_metrics_sum_delta | memory utilization | +0.16 | [-0.02, +0.34] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.09 | [-0.43, +0.60] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.02 | [-0.41, +0.46] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | +0.02 | [-0.03, +0.08] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | +0.01 | [-0.20, +0.21] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_v3 | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.21, +0.21] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.11, +0.11] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.40, +0.38] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.03 | [-0.15, +0.10] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | docker_containers_memory | memory utilization | -0.05 | [-0.13, +0.04] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | ddot_metrics | memory utilization | -0.05 | [-0.23, +0.13] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | -0.11 | [-0.14, -0.08] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | -0.21 | [-0.27, -0.16] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | -0.25 | [-0.42, -0.08] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_20mb_12k_contexts_20_senders | memory utilization | -0.34 | [-0.41, -0.28] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | ddot_logs | memory utilization | -0.51 | [-0.57, -0.44] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | otlp_ingest_logs | memory utilization | -0.67 | [-0.78, -0.57] | 1 | Logs |
Bounds Checks: ❌ Failed
| perf | experiment | bounds_check_name | replicates_passed | observed_value | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ✅ | docker_containers_cpu | simple_check_run | 10/10 | 573 ≥ 26 | |
| ✅ | docker_containers_memory | memory_usage | 10/10 | 274.93MiB ≤ 370MiB | |
| ✅ | docker_containers_memory | simple_check_run | 10/10 | 655 ≥ 26 | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | 0.19GiB ≤ 1.20GiB | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | missed_bytes | 10/10 | 0B = 0B | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | 0.24GiB ≤ 1.20GiB | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | missed_bytes | 10/10 | 0B = 0B | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | 0.20GiB ≤ 1.20GiB | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | missed_bytes | 10/10 | 0B = 0B | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | 0.22GiB ≤ 1.20GiB | |
| ✅ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | missed_bytes | 10/10 | 0B = 0B | |
| ❌ | quality_gate_idle | intake_connections | 0/10 | 4 > 3 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_idle | memory_usage | 10/10 | 175.47MiB ≤ 181MiB | bounds checks dashboard |
| ❌ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | intake_connections | 1/10 | 4 > 3 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory_usage | 10/10 | 500.85MiB ≤ 550MiB | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_logs | intake_connections | 10/10 | 4 ≤ 6 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_logs | memory_usage | 10/10 | 208.12MiB ≤ 220MiB | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_logs | missed_bytes | 10/10 | 0B = 0B | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | cpu_usage | 10/10 | 349.27 ≤ 2000 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | intake_connections | 10/10 | 4 ≤ 6 | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | memory_usage | 10/10 | 407.98MiB ≤ 475MiB | bounds checks dashboard |
| ✅ | quality_gate_metrics_logs | missed_bytes | 10/10 | 0B = 0B | 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
❌ Failed. Some Quality Gates were violated.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check missed_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle, bounds check intake_connections: 0/10 replicas passed. Failed 10 which is > 0. Gate FAILED.
- quality_gate_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check intake_connections: 1/10 replicas passed. Failed 9 which is > 0. Gate FAILED.
- quality_gate_idle_all_features, 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 memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check missed_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
Motivation
When an autodiscovered check template contains a variable not supported by the listener (e.g.
%%extra_dbinstanceidentifier%%on a Docker listener), the config is silently dropped with only a DEBUG log. Users and support have no way to discover why their check instance disappeared. See write-up.Approach
Builds on @Mathew-Estafanous's AD annotation health check (#48962), reusing the
admisconfigissue module and constants:log.Debug→log.ErrorfinresolveTemplateForService()so failures are visible at the default log levelad-misconfigurationissues with a newtemplate_resolutionerror source and tailored remediation steps (check template variables, review listener docs, run configcheck)reconcileService)option.Option[healthplatform.Component]already on AutoConfig (from [CONTP-1365] feat(health): Add AD annotation health check #48962) and passes the concrete component into the config managerVerification
dda env devLinux container): Confirmed ERROR log, health issue detection,agent diagnose --verboseoutput with remediation steps, and auto-clearing on container removal🤖 Generated with Claude Code
Documentation: https://datadoghq.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/AGTH/pages/6562972254/Autodiscovery+Template+Resolution+Failure