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

Always build pyodbc from source #20184

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Oct 17, 2023
Merged

Conversation

FlorentClarret
Copy link
Member

@FlorentClarret FlorentClarret commented Oct 17, 2023

What does this PR do?

Always build pyodbc from source

Motivation

  • In this PR we want to bump pyodbc from 4.0.32 to 4.0.39 to support py3.11
  • All the agent builds except the rpm x64 (yeah that's unusual) started to fail with this new version: https://gitlab.ddbuild.io/DataDog/datadog-agent/-/jobs/350400989
  • With pyodbc 4.0.35+, they started to provide wheels for linux, we now just download the wheel, except on the rpm x64 build because there's no wheel for this one
  • The path to libodbc is hardcoded in the wheel to the default path, which makes our health check fail
  • We need to manually build the wheel with the right flags to be able to use a custom path for libodbc, this is exactly what we are doing with 4.0.32

Additional Notes

Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs

Describe how to test/QA your changes

Reviewer's Checklist

  • If known, an appropriate milestone has been selected; otherwise the Triage milestone is set.
  • Use the major_change label if your change either has a major impact on the code base, is impacting multiple teams or is changing important well-established internals of the Agent. This label will be use during QA to make sure each team pay extra attention to the changed behavior. For any customer facing change use a releasenote.
  • A release note has been added or the changelog/no-changelog label has been applied.
  • Changed code has automated tests for its functionality.
  • Adequate QA/testing plan information is provided if the qa/skip-qa label is not applied.
  • At least one team/.. label has been applied, indicating the team(s) that should QA this change.
  • If applicable, docs team has been notified or an issue has been opened on the documentation repo.
  • If applicable, the need-change/operator and need-change/helm labels have been applied.
  • If applicable, the k8s/<min-version> label, indicating the lowest Kubernetes version compatible with this feature.
  • If applicable, the config template has been updated.

@FlorentClarret FlorentClarret changed the title florentclarret/bump pyodbc Specify the CPPFLAGS flag to installl pyodbc Oct 17, 2023
@FlorentClarret FlorentClarret added this to the 7.50.0 milestone Oct 17, 2023
@FlorentClarret FlorentClarret changed the title Specify the CPPFLAGS flag to installl pyodbc Always manually build pyodbc from source Oct 17, 2023
@FlorentClarret FlorentClarret changed the title Always manually build pyodbc from source Always build pyodbc from source Oct 17, 2023
@pr-commenter
Copy link

pr-commenter bot commented Oct 17, 2023

Bloop Bleep... Dogbot Here

Regression Detector Results

Run ID: 88ef2b9a-5879-4ef8-9557-6417b966860e
Baseline: b6ad44e
Comparison: 248af8c
Total datadog-agent CPUs: 7

Explanation

A regression test is an integrated performance test for datadog-agent in a repeatable rig, with varying configuration for datadog-agent. What follows is a statistical summary of a brief datadog-agent run for each configuration across SHAs given above. The goal of these tests are to determine quickly if datadog-agent performance is changed and to what degree by a pull request.

Because a target's optimization goal performance in each experiment will vary somewhat each time it is run, we can only estimate mean differences in optimization goal relative to the baseline target. We express these differences as a percentage change relative to the baseline target, denoted "Δ mean %". These estimates are made to a precision that balances accuracy and cost control. We represent this precision as a 90.00% confidence interval denoted "Δ mean % CI": there is a 90.00% chance that the true value of "Δ mean %" is in that interval.

We decide whether a change in performance is a "regression" -- a change worth investigating further -- if both of the following two criteria are true:

  1. The estimated |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%. This criterion intends to answer the question "Does the estimated change in mean optimization goal performance have a meaningful impact on your customers?". We assume that when |Δ mean %| < 5.00%, the impact on your customers is not meaningful. We also assume that a performance change in optimization goal is worth investigating whether it is an increase or decrease, so long as the magnitude of the change is sufficiently large.

  2. Zero is not in the 90.00% confidence interval "Δ mean % CI" about "Δ mean %". This statement is equivalent to saying that there is at least a 90.00% chance that the mean difference in optimization goal is not zero. This criterion intends to answer the question, "Is there a statistically significant difference in mean optimization goal performance?". It also means there is no more than a 10.00% chance this criterion reports a statistically significant difference when the true difference in mean optimization goal is zero -- a "false positive". We assume you are willing to accept a 10.00% chance of inaccurately detecting a change in performance when no true difference exists.

The table below, if present, lists those experiments that have experienced a statistically significant change in mean optimization goal performance between baseline and comparison SHAs with 90.00% confidence OR have been detected as newly erratic. Negative values of "Δ mean %" mean that baseline is faster, whereas positive values of "Δ mean %" mean that comparison is faster. Results that do not exhibit more than a ±5.00% change in their mean optimization goal are discarded. An experiment is erratic if its coefficient of variation is greater than 0.1. The abbreviated table will be omitted if no interesting change is observed.

No interesting changes in experiment optimization goals with confidence ≥ 90.00% and |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%.

Fine details of change detection per experiment.
experiment goal Δ mean % Δ mean % CI confidence
file_tree egress throughput +2.96 [+0.82, +5.10] 97.73%
tcp_syslog_to_blackhole ingress throughput +1.32 [+1.17, +1.47] 100.00%
uds_dogstatsd_to_api ingress throughput +1.00 [-1.12, +3.12] 56.06%
trace_agent_json ingress throughput +0.01 [-0.12, +0.14] 14.24%
tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude ingress throughput +0.01 [-0.05, +0.07] 16.69%
uds_dogstatsd_to_api_nodist_1MiB ingress throughput +0.00 [-0.00, +0.01] 66.73%
uds_dogstatsd_to_api_nodist_64MiB ingress throughput +0.00 [-0.13, +0.13] 0.50%
file_to_blackhole egress throughput +0.00 [-1.38, +1.38] 0.00%
uds_dogstatsd_to_api_nodist_100MiB ingress throughput -0.00 [-0.13, +0.13] 0.71%
uds_dogstatsd_to_api_nodist_32MiB ingress throughput -0.00 [-0.13, +0.13] 2.24%
uds_dogstatsd_to_api_nodist_16MiB ingress throughput -0.01 [-0.13, +0.12] 5.48%
trace_agent_msgpack ingress throughput -0.03 [-0.13, +0.07] 39.52%
uds_dogstatsd_to_api_nodist_200MiB ingress throughput -0.40 [-0.51, -0.29] 100.00%
otel_to_otel_logs ingress throughput -0.44 [-2.04, +1.15] 35.25%

@FlorentClarret FlorentClarret marked this pull request as ready for review October 17, 2023 12:14
@FlorentClarret FlorentClarret requested a review from a team as a code owner October 17, 2023 12:14
@FlorentClarret FlorentClarret merged commit 6c04f4c into main Oct 17, 2023
7 checks passed
@FlorentClarret FlorentClarret deleted the florentclarret/bump_pyodbc branch October 17, 2023 14:00
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants