Skip to content

CODEOWNERS: Update codeowners for ./pkg/util/filesystem#51809

Merged
gh-worker-dd-mergequeue-cf854d[bot] merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
jinh-labs/codeowners-filesystem-rights-split
Jun 4, 2026
Merged

CODEOWNERS: Update codeowners for ./pkg/util/filesystem#51809
gh-worker-dd-mergequeue-cf854d[bot] merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
jinh-labs/codeowners-filesystem-rights-split

Conversation

@jinh-labs
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@jinh-labs jinh-labs commented Jun 4, 2026

What does this PR do?

Before: @DataDog/agent-runtimes and @DataDog/agent-configuration were co-owners of /pkg/util/filesystem/.

Now: @DataDog/agent-configuration owns rights_*.go files under /pkg/util/filesystem/. The rest of the directory remains under @DataDog/agent-runtimes.

Motivation

Better separation of ownership

Describe how you validated your changes

CODEOWNERS syntax checked.

Additional Notes

@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

github-actions Bot commented Jun 4, 2026

@codex review

@dd-octo-sts dd-octo-sts Bot added the internal Identify a non-fork PR label Jun 4, 2026
@github-actions github-actions Bot added the short review PR is simple enough to be reviewed quickly label Jun 4, 2026
@datadog-datadog-prod-us1-2
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

datadog-datadog-prod-us1-2 Bot commented Jun 4, 2026

Pipelines

Fix all issues with BitsAI

⚠️ Warnings

🚦 5 Pipeline jobs failed

DataDog/datadog-agent | unit_tests_notify   View in Datadog   GitLab

See error Command 'ls junit-tests_*.tgz' failed: No such file or directory.

Label analysis | release-note-check   View in Datadog   GitHub Actions

See error Release note not found for this PR. Please add one using 'reno' or apply the label 'changelog/no-changelog'.

Label analysis | skip-qa-check   View in Datadog   GitHub Actions

View all 5 failed jobs.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎

This comment will be updated automatically if new data arrives.
🔗 Commit SHA: bf33520 | Docs | Datadog PR Page | Give us feedback!

@chatgpt-codex-connector
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. 🎉

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".

@jinh-labs jinh-labs added changelog/no-changelog No changelog entry needed qa/done QA done before merge and regressions are covered by tests labels Jun 4, 2026
@jinh-labs jinh-labs changed the title codeowners: split filesystem ownership for rights_*.go files CODEOWNERS: Add agent-configuration as codeowner of rights_*.go in pkg/util/filesystem Jun 4, 2026
@jinh-labs jinh-labs marked this pull request as ready for review June 4, 2026 15:39
@jinh-labs jinh-labs requested review from a team, Enzu83 and s-alad June 4, 2026 15:42
@dd-octo-sts
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

dd-octo-sts Bot commented Jun 4, 2026

Files inventory check summary

File checks results against ancestor f3062050:

Results for datadog-agent_7.81.0~devel.git.522.bf33520.pipeline.117083483-1_amd64.deb:

No change detected

@gh-worker-dd-mergequeue-cf854d gh-worker-dd-mergequeue-cf854d Bot merged commit ad9017c into main Jun 4, 2026
252 of 261 checks passed
@gh-worker-dd-mergequeue-cf854d gh-worker-dd-mergequeue-cf854d Bot deleted the jinh-labs/codeowners-filesystem-rights-split branch June 4, 2026 19:18
@github-actions github-actions Bot added this to the 7.81.0 milestone Jun 4, 2026
github-actions Bot pushed a commit to Bettdatt/datadog-agent that referenced this pull request Jun 4, 2026
…g/util/filesystem (DataDog#51809)

### What does this PR do?

Before: `@DataDog/agent-runtimes` and `@DataDog/agent-configuration` were co-owners of `/pkg/util/filesystem/`.

Now: `@DataDog/agent-configuration` owns `rights_*.go` files under `/pkg/util/filesystem/`. The rest of the directory remains under `@DataDog/agent-runtimes`.

### Motivation
Better separation of ownership

### Describe how you validated your changes
CODEOWNERS syntax checked.

### Additional Notes

Co-authored-by: jin.hong <jin.hong@datadoghq.com> ad9017c
@cit-pr-commenter-54b7da
Copy link
Copy Markdown

cit-pr-commenter-54b7da Bot commented Jun 4, 2026

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Metrics dashboard
Target profiles
Run ID: 5a7ee381-0839-4087-a418-6a71141b2b19

Baseline: ae80516
Comparison: ad9017c
Diff

Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf experiment goal Δ mean % Δ mean % CI trials links
quality_gate_logs % cpu utilization +0.24 [-0.78, +1.26] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_idle_all_features memory utilization +0.08 [+0.04, +0.12] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_idle memory utilization -0.05 [-0.10, +0.01] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_metrics_logs memory utilization -0.12 [-0.37, +0.13] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard

Bounds Checks: ✅ Passed

perf experiment bounds_check_name replicates_passed observed_value links
quality_gate_idle intake_connections 10/10 3 ≤ 4 bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_idle memory_usage 10/10 145.66MiB ≤ 147MiB bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_idle total_bytes_received 10/10 730.08KiB ≤ 819.20KiB bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_idle_all_features intake_connections 10/10 3 ≤ 4 bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_idle_all_features memory_usage 10/10 483.98MiB ≤ 495MiB bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_idle_all_features total_bytes_received 10/10 1.12MiB ≤ 1.25MiB bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_logs intake_connections 10/10 4 ≤ 6 bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_logs memory_usage 10/10 177.59MiB ≤ 195MiB bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_logs missed_bytes 10/10 0B = 0B bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_logs total_bytes_received 10/10 264.42MiB ≤ 292MiB bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_metrics_logs cpu_usage 10/10 358.90 ≤ 2000 bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_metrics_logs intake_connections 10/10 4 ≤ 6 bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_metrics_logs memory_usage 10/10 378.17MiB ≤ 430MiB bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_metrics_logs missed_bytes 10/10 0B = 0B bounds checks dashboard
quality_gate_metrics_logs total_bytes_received 10/10 0.93GiB ≤ 1.04GiB 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".

Replicate Execution Details

We run multiple replicates for each experiment/variant. However, we allow replicates to be automatically retried if there are any failures, up to 8 times, at which point the replicate is marked dead and we are unable to run analysis for the entire experiment. We call each of these attempts at running replicates a replicate execution. This section lists all replicate executions that failed due to the target crashing or being oom killed.

Note: In the below tables we bucket failures by experiment, variant, and failure type. For each of these buckets we list out the replicate indexes that failed with an annotation signifying how many times said replicate failed with the given failure mode. In the below example the baseline variant of the experiment named experiment_with_failures had two replicates that failed by oom kills. Replicate 0, which failed 8 executions, and replicate 1 which failed 6 executions, all with the same failure mode.

Experiment Variant Replicates Failure Logs Debug Dashboard
experiment_with_failures baseline 0 (x8) 1 (x6) Oom killed Debug Dashboard

The debug dashboard links will take you to a debugging dashboard specifically designed to investigate replicate execution failures.

❌ Retried Profiling Replicate Execution Failures (ddprof)

Note: Profiling replicas may still be executing. See the debug dashboard for up to date status.

Experiment Variant Replicates Failure Debug Dashboard
quality_gate_idle baseline 10 Oom killed Debug Dashboard
quality_gate_idle comparison 10 Oom killed Debug Dashboard
quality_gate_idle_all_features baseline 10 Oom killed Debug Dashboard
quality_gate_idle_all_features comparison 10 Oom killed Debug Dashboard
quality_gate_logs comparison 10 Oom killed Debug Dashboard
quality_gate_metrics_logs baseline 10 Oom killed Debug Dashboard
quality_gate_metrics_logs comparison 10 Oom killed Debug Dashboard

CI Pass/Fail Decision

Passed. All Quality Gates passed.

  • quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check total_bytes_received: 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 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 memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_idle, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_idle, bounds check total_bytes_received: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check total_bytes_received: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_logs, bounds check total_bytes_received: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_logs, bounds check missed_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_logs, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.

@sgnn7 sgnn7 changed the title CODEOWNERS: Add agent-configuration as codeowner of rights_*.go in pkg/util/filesystem CODEOWNERS: Update codeowners for ./pkg/util/filesystem Jun 4, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

changelog/no-changelog No changelog entry needed internal Identify a non-fork PR qa/done QA done before merge and regressions are covered by tests short review PR is simple enough to be reviewed quickly

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants