Force Linux platform for editor/IDE build tag configuration

[L3n41c]

What does this PR do?

Forces platform="linux" when computing build tags for editor/IDE configurations (Claude Code gopls plugin, VSCode, Emacs, Vim). This ensures all build tags — including Linux-specific ones like docker, systemd, trivy, linux_bpf, etc. — are always included in editor configs regardless of the developer's host OS.

Motivation

The Claude Code gopls plugin has a SessionStart hook that auto-refreshes build tags via dda inv claude.set-buildtags. On macOS, filter_incompatible_tags() strips 12 Linux-specific tags (docker, systemd, trivy, containerd, cri, crio, linux_bpf, netcgo, nvml, pcap, podman, jetson), making gopls blind to files guarded by those tags.

Since most agent developers work on Linux features from their Mac, this was causing the gopls plugin to auto-update with an incomplete tag set (as demonstrated in PR #49453).

Editor/IDE tasks configure code navigation, not compilation — they need to see all files regardless of the developer's host OS.

Describe how you validated your changes

• Ran dda inv claude.set-buildtags and verified the generated plugin.json contains the full set of 42+ tags including all previously-filtered Linux-specific tags.
• Verified the change is backward-compatible: compute_config_build_tags() defaults to platform=None (auto-detect), so non-editor callers are unaffected.

Additional Notes

The same fix is applied to all editor config tasks (vscode, emacs, vim) since they share the same underlying issue.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[L3n41c]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 8af42b27a9

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to 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 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 8af42b27a9

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to 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 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[dd-octo-sts]

Files inventory check summary

File checks results against ancestor d11522b4:

Results for datadog-agent_7.79.0~devel.git.807.8af42b2.pipeline.108023466-1_amd64.deb:

No change detected

[cit-pr-commenter-54b7da]

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Metrics dashboard
Target profiles
Run ID: 8529cdbc-98d8-491d-a437-e00cf390412e

Baseline: d11522b
Comparison: 8af42b2
Diff

Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected

Experiments ignored for regressions

Regressions in experiments with settings containing erratic: true are ignored.

perf	experiment	goal	Δ mean %	Δ mean % CI	trials	links
➖	docker_containers_cpu	% cpu utilization	-1.01	[-3.99, +1.96]	1	Logs

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf	experiment	goal	Δ mean %	Δ mean % CI	trials	links
➖	ddot_metrics	memory utilization	+0.85	[+0.67, +1.02]	1	Logs
➖	otlp_ingest_metrics	memory utilization	+0.75	[+0.60, +0.91]	1	Logs
➖	tcp_syslog_to_blackhole	ingress throughput	+0.40	[+0.20, +0.61]	1	Logs
➖	ddot_metrics_sum_cumulative	memory utilization	+0.29	[+0.14, +0.44]	1	Logs
➖	otlp_ingest_logs	memory utilization	+0.25	[+0.14, +0.37]	1	Logs
➖	quality_gate_idle_all_features	memory utilization	+0.15	[+0.12, +0.18]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖	ddot_metrics_sum_cumulativetodelta_exporter	memory utilization	+0.13	[-0.09, +0.36]	1	Logs
➖	quality_gate_metrics_logs	memory utilization	+0.09	[-0.14, +0.33]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖	quality_gate_idle	memory utilization	+0.07	[+0.02, +0.12]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖	file_tree	memory utilization	+0.05	[-0.01, +0.10]	1	Logs
➖	file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency	egress throughput	+0.04	[-0.53, +0.61]	1	Logs
➖	file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency	egress throughput	+0.01	[-0.13, +0.14]	1	Logs
➖	uds_dogstatsd_to_api_v3	ingress throughput	-0.01	[-0.22, +0.20]	1	Logs
➖	uds_dogstatsd_to_api	ingress throughput	-0.02	[-0.23, +0.19]	1	Logs
➖	tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude	ingress throughput	-0.02	[-0.15, +0.10]	1	Logs
➖	ddot_metrics_sum_delta	memory utilization	-0.03	[-0.19, +0.13]	1	Logs
➖	file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency	egress throughput	-0.03	[-0.46, +0.40]	1	Logs
➖	file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency	egress throughput	-0.05	[-0.46, +0.36]	1	Logs
➖	ddot_logs	memory utilization	-0.14	[-0.20, -0.08]	1	Logs
➖	docker_containers_memory	memory utilization	-0.15	[-0.23, -0.07]	1	Logs
➖	uds_dogstatsd_20mb_12k_contexts_20_senders	memory utilization	-0.42	[-0.48, -0.36]	1	Logs
➖	docker_containers_cpu	% cpu utilization	-1.01	[-3.99, +1.96]	1	Logs
➖	quality_gate_logs	% cpu utilization	-1.54	[-3.18, +0.10]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard

Bounds Checks: ❌ Failed

perf	experiment	bounds_check_name	replicates_passed	observed_value	links
✅	docker_containers_cpu	simple_check_run	10/10	694 ≥ 26
✅	docker_containers_memory	memory_usage	10/10	277.40MiB ≤ 370MiB
✅	docker_containers_memory	simple_check_run	10/10	708 ≥ 26
✅	file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency	memory_usage	10/10	0.20GiB ≤ 1.20GiB
✅	file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency	missed_bytes	10/10	0B = 0B
✅	file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency	memory_usage	10/10	0.23GiB ≤ 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	175.16MiB ≤ 181MiB	bounds checks dashboard
❌	quality_gate_idle_all_features	intake_connections	3/10	4 > 3	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_idle_all_features	memory_usage	10/10	498.90MiB ≤ 550MiB	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_logs	intake_connections	10/10	4 ≤ 6	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_logs	memory_usage	10/10	211.18MiB ≤ 220MiB	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_logs	missed_bytes	10/10	0B = 0B	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_metrics_logs	cpu_usage	10/10	354.64 ≤ 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	428.91MiB ≤ 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:

1. Its estimated |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%, indicating the change is big enough to merit a closer look.

2. 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.

3. Its configuration does not mark it "erratic".

CI Pass/Fail Decision

❌ Failed. Some Quality Gates were violated.

• 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: 3/10 replicas passed. Failed 7 which is > 0. Gate FAILED.
• quality_gate_idle_all_features, 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 memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_logs, bounds check missed_bytes: 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 missed_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.