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

DEBUG-3316 verify code tracking works in forked processes #4284

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jan 14, 2025

Conversation

p-datadog
Copy link
Member

@p-datadog p-datadog commented Jan 13, 2025

What does this PR do?

Adds test coverage that dynamic instrumentation code tracking works in forked processes.

Motivation:

Verification of DI functionality in various environments

Change log entry
None

Additional Notes:

How to test the change?

Unit tests are included

@github-actions github-actions bot added the dev/testing Involves testing processes (e.g. RSpec) label Jan 13, 2025
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Jan 13, 2025

Thank you for updating Change log entry section 👏

Visited at: 2025-01-13 21:43:31 UTC

@datadog-datadog-prod-us1
Copy link
Contributor

datadog-datadog-prod-us1 bot commented Jan 13, 2025

Datadog Report

Branch report: di-code-tracker-fork
Commit report: 294d41f
Test service: dd-trace-rb

✅ 0 Failed, 22192 Passed, 1476 Skipped, 6m 2.65s Total Time

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Jan 13, 2025

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 69.56522% with 7 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 97.71%. Comparing base (5235204) to head (294d41f).

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
spec/datadog/di/code_tracker_spec.rb 68.18% 7 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #4284      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   97.72%   97.71%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files        1354     1355       +1     
  Lines       82410    82433      +23     
  Branches     4213     4213              
==========================================
+ Hits        80538    80550      +12     
- Misses       1872     1883      +11     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@pr-commenter
Copy link

pr-commenter bot commented Jan 13, 2025

Benchmarks

Benchmark execution time: 2025-01-14 15:45:07

Comparing candidate commit 294d41f in PR branch di-code-tracker-fork with baseline commit 5235204 in branch master.

Found 0 performance improvements and 0 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 31 metrics, 2 unstable metrics.

@p-datadog p-datadog marked this pull request as ready for review January 13, 2025 21:43
@p-datadog p-datadog requested a review from a team as a code owner January 13, 2025 21:43
@p-datadog p-datadog added this to the 2.9.0 milestone Jan 13, 2025
@p-datadog p-datadog merged commit 08743d9 into master Jan 14, 2025
378 checks passed
@p-datadog p-datadog deleted the di-code-tracker-fork branch January 14, 2025 15:52
p-datadog pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 15, 2025
* master: (161 commits)
  Bump to version 2.9.0 (#4293)
  Increase type checking coverage (#4290)
  DEBUG-3329 rename datadog/di/init to datadog/di/preload (#4288)
  update supported versions workflow (#4289)
  DEBUG-3182 DI railtie (#4272)
  DEBUG-3328 report DI status in environment logger summary (#4285)
  Move out ostruct gem from test group for Ruby 3.5
  DEBUG-3316 verify code tracking works in forked processes (#4284)
  Fix rebase issue in Rack::RequestMiddleware
  Improve code style in AppSec rack middlewares
  Improve variable naming in Rack::RequestBodyMiddleware
  Improve variable naming in Rack::RequestMiddleware
  Simplify Rack::RequestMiddleware
  Switch AppSec rack blocking to throw
  Extract to .gitlab/scripts
  Implement polling vaccine
  Update RBS signatures
  Add new RSpec negate matcher not_change
  Replace direct AppSec::Processor::Context calls
  Change AppSec::Context exposed interface
  ...
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
dev/testing Involves testing processes (e.g. RSpec)
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants