[NDM][NDMII-2748] test snmp tags on agent restart by jedupau · Pull Request #26003 · DataDog/datadog-agent

jedupau · 2024-05-28T09:50:37Z

What does this PR do?

Add an e2e following this PR
It tests that tags are stored on disk and so are still there after a restart of the agent

Motivation

Additional Notes

Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs

Describe how to test/QA your changes

pr-commenter · 2024-05-28T10:56:28Z

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Run ID: 8b342fca-5016-43a0-8974-69dbe3ddb794
Baseline: 7debf30
Comparison: 0cbe423

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

No significant changes in experiment optimization goals

Confidence level: 90.00%
Effect size tolerance: |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%

There were no significant changes in experiment optimization goals at this confidence level and effect size tolerance.

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf	experiment	goal	Δ mean %	Δ mean % CI
➖	basic_py_check	% cpu utilization	+2.26	[-0.52, +5.03]
➖	pycheck_1000_100byte_tags	% cpu utilization	+0.62	[-3.99, +5.23]
➖	uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu	% cpu utilization	+0.34	[-2.55, +3.22]
➖	idle	memory utilization	+0.18	[+0.14, +0.22]
➖	otel_to_otel_logs	ingress throughput	+0.02	[-0.34, +0.38]
➖	trace_agent_json	ingress throughput	+0.00	[-0.01, +0.01]
➖	trace_agent_msgpack	ingress throughput	+0.00	[-0.00, +0.00]
➖	tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude	ingress throughput	-0.01	[-0.04, +0.03]
➖	uds_dogstatsd_to_api	ingress throughput	-0.01	[-0.21, +0.19]
➖	file_tree	memory utilization	-0.77	[-0.88, -0.66]
➖	tcp_syslog_to_blackhole	ingress throughput	-3.19	[-24.12, +17.75]

Explanation

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".

agent-platform-auto-pr · 2024-05-28T12:27:45Z

[Fast Unit Tests Report]

On pipeline 35364259 (CI Visibility). The following jobs did not run any unit tests:

Jobs:

tests_deb-arm64-py3
tests_deb-x64-py3
tests_flavor_dogstatsd_deb-x64
tests_flavor_heroku_deb-x64
tests_flavor_iot_deb-x64
tests_rpm-arm64-py3
tests_rpm-x64-py3
tests_windows-x64

If you modified Go files and expected unit tests to run in these jobs, please double check the job logs. If you think tests should have been executed reach out to #agent-developer-experience

pr-commenter · 2024-05-28T13:12:34Z

Test changes on VM

Use this command from test-infra-definitions to manually test this PR changes on a VM:

inv create-vm --pipeline-id=35364259 --os-family=ubuntu

pducolin · 2024-05-28T14:11:05Z

    TARGETS: ./tests/ndm/netflow
    TEAM: network-device-monitoring
+
+new-e2e-ndm-snmp:


👏 praise

pducolin · 2024-05-28T14:12:25Z

  - ip_address: dd-snmp
    port: 1161
-    community_string: "public"
+    community_string: "cisco-nexus"


🥜 nitpick
You could update the config file name accordingly

changed b80d861

pducolin · 2024-05-28T14:13:25Z

+	require.NoError(s.T(), err)
+
+	initialTags := initialMetrics[0].Tags
+	_, err = s.Env().RemoteHost.Execute("docker stop dd-snmp")


💬 suggestion
Should be possible to run the request using the Docker client in

datadog-agent/test/new-e2e/pkg/environments/dockerhost.go

Line 19 in 3e72757

Docker *components.RemoteHostDocker

To be tested:

// stop s.Env().Docker.GetClient().ContainerStop(context.Background(), "dd-snmp", container.StopOptions{}) // restart s.Env().Docker.GetClient().ContainerRestart(context.Background(), s.Env().Agent.ContainerName, container.StopOptions{})

But I think you need to get the ID from the container name

Checked and indeed you would need to get the container ID, will create a card to provide this through the Docker client, we can generate a list of container ids by their name.

Yes I tried before to get the list of container ids filtered by the name and then get the first one from the list but it is maybe easier like this

L3n41c · 2024-05-28T15:50:43Z

+	initialMetrics, err := fakeintake.FilterMetrics("snmp.device.reachable",
+		client.WithTags[*aggregator.MetricSeries]([]string{}),
+	)


options are optional.
An empty list of filtering tags should be equivalent to not specifying any list of filtering tags at all.

Suggested change

initialMetrics, err := fakeintake.FilterMetrics("snmp.device.reachable",

client.WithTags[*aggregator.MetricSeries]([]string{}),

)

initialMetrics, err := fakeintake.FilterMetrics("snmp.device.reachable")

changed 45ae6cc

L3n41c · 2024-05-28T15:55:11Z

+		metrics, err = fakeintake.FilterMetrics("snmp.device.reachable",
+			client.WithTags[*aggregator.MetricSeries]([]string{}),
+		)


Same remark as above.

Suggested change

metrics, err = fakeintake.FilterMetrics("snmp.device.reachable",

client.WithTags[*aggregator.MetricSeries]([]string{}),

)

metrics, err = fakeintake.FilterMetrics("snmp.device.reachable")

changed 45ae6cc

jmw51798 · 2024-05-28T16:28:05Z

+
+func (s *snmpDockerSuite) TestSnmpTagsAreStoredOnRestart() {
+	fakeintake := s.Env().FakeIntake.Client()
+	initialMetrics, err := fakeintake.FilterMetrics("snmp.device.reachable",


To be safe from potentially flaky test failures I think FIlterMetrics() should be inside an EventuallyWithT().

changed d8de7c0
also changed in that commit the require to assert to prevent the test from failing if the fakeintake responds an error

jmw51798 · 2024-05-28T17:03:34Z

+
+	require.Zero(s.T(), metrics[0].Points[0].Value)
+	require.ElementsMatch(s.T(), tags, initialTags)
+	require.Len(s.T(), tags, 9)


Consider removing this check since the number of tags could change and it probably doesn't check anything beyond what was already checked by the previous ElementsMatch().

removed 45ae6cc

jmw51798 · 2024-05-28T21:11:22Z

+	_, err = s.Env().RemoteHost.Execute("docker stop dd-snmp")
+	require.NoError(s.T(), err)
+
+	err = fakeintake.FlushServerAndResetAggregators()


Is this needed both before and after the agent restart?

removed the first one ! 45ae6cc

L3n41c · 2024-05-29T12:43:20Z

+
+	require.EventuallyWithT(s.T(), func(t *assert.CollectT) {
+		initialMetrics, err = fakeintake.FilterMetrics("snmp.device.reachable")
+		assert.NoError(s.T(), err)


This will make the whole TestSnmpTagsAreStoredOnRestart test fail instead of retrying inside the EventuallyWithT block.
We need to target the CollectT of the EventuallyWithT function.

Suggested change

assert.NoError(s.T(), err)

assert.NoError(t, err)

changed 0cbe423

jedupau · 2024-05-31T08:00:50Z

/merge

dd-devflow · 2024-05-31T08:01:23Z

🚂 MergeQueue

Pull request added to the queue.

This build is going to start soon! (estimated merge in less than 28m)

Use /merge -c to cancel this operation!

jedupau added changelog/no-changelog No changelog entry needed team/network-device-monitoring qa/no-code-change No code change in Agent code requiring validation labels May 28, 2024

jedupau requested review from a team as code owners May 28, 2024 09:50

FlorianVeaux reviewed May 28, 2024

View reviewed changes

Comment thread .gitlab-ci.yml Outdated

Comment thread pkg/collector/corechecks/snmp/internal/devicecheck/devicecheck.go Outdated

Comment thread test/new-e2e/tests/ndm/snmp/snmp_test.go Outdated

Comment thread test/new-e2e/tests/ndm/snmp/snmp_test.go Outdated

jedupau added 3 commits May 28, 2024 13:23

add an e2e test to test the restart of the agent

8c1b013

change gitlab ci step name

344016c

fix require and assert confusion

69c9d21

jedupau force-pushed the jed/test-tags-on-agent-restart branch from 5e1c2ea to 69c9d21 Compare May 28, 2024 12:08

FlorianVeaux approved these changes May 28, 2024

View reviewed changes

clean test

2fd8dfd

jedupau removed the request for review from a team May 28, 2024 12:40

chouetz approved these changes May 28, 2024

View reviewed changes

add commit in the ci

8644d17

jedupau requested review from a team as code owners May 28, 2024 13:33

pducolin approved these changes May 28, 2024

View reviewed changes

L3n41c approved these changes May 28, 2024

View reviewed changes

jmw51798 reviewed May 28, 2024

View reviewed changes

Comment thread .gitlab/e2e/e2e.yml

jmw51798 reviewed May 28, 2024

View reviewed changes

Comment thread test/new-e2e/tests/ndm/snmp/snmp_test.go

jmw51798 reviewed May 28, 2024

View reviewed changes

jedupau added 2 commits May 29, 2024 10:40

change config filename

b80d861

improve test behavior

45ae6cc

jedupau added 2 commits May 29, 2024 10:50

prevent potential flaky test

d8de7c0

fix test

bcdd43c

jedupau mentioned this pull request May 29, 2024

[NDM][NDMII-2748] add snmp worload app DataDog/test-infra-definitions#849

Closed

jedupau requested review from L3n41c and jmw51798 May 29, 2024 09:32

use container in cache

114b9cb

L3n41c reviewed May 29, 2024

View reviewed changes

fix test

0cbe423

jmw51798 approved these changes May 30, 2024

View reviewed changes

dd-mergequeue Bot merged commit d946fb7 into main May 31, 2024

dd-mergequeue Bot deleted the jed/test-tags-on-agent-restart branch May 31, 2024 08:22

github-actions Bot added this to the 7.55.0 milestone May 31, 2024

Conversation

jedupau commented May 28, 2024

What does this PR do?

Motivation

Additional Notes

Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs

Describe how to test/QA your changes

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

pr-commenter Bot commented May 28, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

No significant changes in experiment optimization goals

Fine details of change detection per experiment

Explanation

Uh oh!

agent-platform-auto-pr Bot commented May 28, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

pr-commenter Bot commented May 28, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Test changes on VM

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jedupau commented May 31, 2024

Uh oh!

dd-devflow Bot commented May 31, 2024

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

7 participants

pr-commenter Bot commented May 28, 2024 •

edited

Loading

agent-platform-auto-pr Bot commented May 28, 2024 •

edited

Loading

pr-commenter Bot commented May 28, 2024 •

edited

Loading