-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
[AGENTRUN-359] Remove gRPC Gateway from Agent CMD API #37724
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
🚀
Go Package Import DifferencesBaseline: d51f461
|
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: d51f461 Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | +2.10 | [+2.04, +2.16] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | docker_containers_memory | memory utilization | +1.14 | [+1.09, +1.20] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | otlp_ingest_logs | memory utilization | +0.33 | [+0.21, +0.46] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | ddot_metrics | memory utilization | +0.13 | [+0.02, +0.25] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | egress throughput | +0.08 | [-0.53, +0.70] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.02 | [-0.62, +0.67] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | egress throughput | +0.02 | [-0.21, +0.25] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.28, +0.28] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.57, +0.57] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.62, +0.62] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.02, +0.02] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.61, +0.59] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.06 | [-0.67, +0.56] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | otlp_ingest_metrics | memory utilization | -0.06 | [-0.22, +0.10] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | egress throughput | -0.12 | [-0.72, +0.47] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | ddot_logs | memory utilization | -0.25 | [-0.40, -0.11] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | -0.30 | [-0.38, -0.23] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | -0.41 | [-0.48, -0.34] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_20mb_12k_contexts_20_senders | memory utilization | -0.48 | [-0.55, -0.41] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | -0.53 | [-1.41, +0.34] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | -0.86 | [-0.99, -0.73] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | docker_containers_cpu | % cpu utilization | -1.89 | [-4.90, +1.12] | 1 | Logs |
➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | -2.85 | [-5.54, -0.16] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
Bounds Checks: ❌ Failed
perf | experiment | bounds_check_name | replicates_passed | links |
---|---|---|---|---|
❌ | docker_containers_memory | memory_usage | 0/10 | |
✅ | docker_containers_cpu | simple_check_run | 10/10 | |
✅ | docker_containers_memory | simple_check_run | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | lost_bytes | 10/10 | |
✅ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | memory_usage | 10/10 | |
✅ | quality_gate_idle | intake_connections | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
✅ | quality_gate_idle | memory_usage | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
✅ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | intake_connections | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
✅ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory_usage | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
✅ | quality_gate_logs | intake_connections | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
✅ | quality_gate_logs | lost_bytes | 10/10 | bounds checks dashboard |
✅ | quality_gate_logs | memory_usage | 10/10 | 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
✅ Passed. All Quality Gates passed.
- quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check lost_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
🥇
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Everything looks great. Left a few comments regarding a few test that we should keep.
Also, we probably have to update the license file and remove the entry for github.com/grpc-ecosystem/grpc-gateway/v2/runtime
also to remove the import from internal/tools/proto/tools.go
and tasks/install_tasks.py
return nil, fmt.Errorf("error") | ||
} | ||
|
||
func TestStartServerWithGrpcServer(t *testing.T) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This test still relevant as we want to test that the gRPC component is being use when building the API component. I would say that we could remove the gateway
attribute of the grpcServer
struct and keep the test.
assert.Error(t, errApp) | ||
} | ||
|
||
func TestStartServerWithoutGrpcServer(t *testing.T) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This test still relevant as we want to test that the gRPC component is being use when building the API component. I would say that we could remove the gateway
attribute of the grpcServer
struct and keep the test.
assert.Equal(t, "GRPC SERVER OK", string(content)) | ||
} | ||
|
||
func TestStartServerWithGrpcServerFailGateway(t *testing.T) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This test we can remove 😄
Static quality checks✅ Please find below the results from static quality gates Successful checksInfo
|
What does this PR do?
This PR removes the gRPC Gateway used in the Agent CMD API. To do so it:
grpc-gateway
inpkg/proto
protobuf.py
invoke task to remove gateway code generationMotivation
The gRPC to REST gateway was not used anymore, so there is no reason to keep it.
Describe how you validated your changes
Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
Additional Notes