Skip to content

feat(data-pipeline): add fork-safe OTLP gRPC trace transport#2273

Open
bm1549 wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
brian.marks/otlp-grpc-transport
Open

feat(data-pipeline): add fork-safe OTLP gRPC trace transport#2273
bm1549 wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
brian.marks/otlp-grpc-transport

Conversation

@bm1549

@bm1549 bm1549 commented Jul 24, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

What does this PR do?

Adds a plaintext gRPC-over-HTTP/2 (h2c) trace-export transport for OTLP to libdd-data-pipeline. It's a custom tower::Service (H2Service) plugged into tonic's generic Grpc<T> client, so the exporter holds no persistent connection or background task: each send opens a fresh connection driven by ephemeral per-request tasks that are torn down when the send completes.

This is the transport primitive only. The OTLP export path is wired to it in a follow-up PR that rebases on top of this one.

Motivation

The earlier OTLP gRPC approach built a tonic Channel, which spawns a persistent background task. Because libdatadog rebuilds its runtime across fork(2), that task dies silently after a fork, which forced a Worker plus watch-channel to rebuild it. Making the transport per-request and task-free removes that machinery and is fork-safe by construction.

Additional Notes

  • default-features = false on tonic (no transport/channel/server); a minimal hand-rolled prost codec replaces ProstCodec (which moved to the separate tonic-prost crate) to avoid the extra dependency.
  • Plaintext only: https:// endpoints are rejected at build time; terminate TLS in a proxy in front of the endpoint if encryption is needed.
  • Design rationale (fork-safety, connection-driver lifecycle, per-request vs pooling) and an ephemeral-vs-zero-spawn load benchmark that informed keeping the ephemeral design are documented here (internal): https://chonk.us1.prod.dog/v2/get/chonk-uploads-prod/brian.marks/e027f306-8806-4b8c-8f83-ede7b44032b5
  • Deferred to the wiring PR: retry parity with the HTTP path, default-port handling for portless endpoints, and preserving the gRPC status code in the error mapping.

How to test the change?

  • cargo nextest run -p libdd-data-pipeline covers unit tests plus in-process h2 integration tests: a real unary send decoded by a mock gRPC server, and connection-refused, timeout, and post-connect-reset cases that all map to TraceExporterError::Io.
  • cargo clippy -p libdd-data-pipeline --all-targets -- -D warnings, cargo +nightly fmt --check, and cargo check -p libdd-data-pipeline --target wasm32-unknown-unknown --no-default-features (the gRPC path is wasm-gated) pass.

Adds a plaintext gRPC-over-HTTP/2 (h2c) trace-export transport for OTLP,
implemented as a custom tower::Service plugged into tonic's Grpc<T>. It
holds no persistent connection or background task: each send opens a fresh
connection driven by ephemeral per-request tasks that are torn down when
the send completes, so nothing is orphaned across fork(2).

Includes a minimal prost codec (tonic 0.14 moved ProstCodec to a separate
crate; hand-rolled here to avoid the extra dependency), endpoint validation
(plaintext http:// only; https:// rejected), gRPC-status-to-error mapping
that recovers nested IO errors, per-request metadata (validated once at
build), and unit plus in-process h2 integration tests.

This is the transport primitive; the OTLP export path is wired to it in a
follow-up change.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
@bm1549 bm1549 added the AI Generated PR largely written by AI tools label Jul 24, 2026
@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Jul 24, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

📚 Documentation Check Results

⚠️ 1224 documentation warning(s) found

📦 libdd-data-pipeline - 1224 warning(s)


Updated: 2026-07-24 17:16:47 UTC | Commit: 638c931 | missing-docs job results

@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Jul 24, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

🔒 Cargo Deny Results

⚠️ 3 issue(s) found, showing only errors (advisories, bans, sources)

📦 libdd-data-pipeline - 3 error(s)

Show output
error[vulnerability]: Invalid pointer dereference in `fmt::Pointer` impl for `Atomic` and `Shared` when the underlying pointer is invalid
   ┌─ /home/runner/work/libdatadog/libdatadog/Cargo.lock:75:1
   │
75 │ crossbeam-epoch 0.9.18 registry+https://github.com/rust-lang/crates.io-index
   │ ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ security vulnerability detected
   │
   ├ ID: RUSTSEC-2026-0204
   ├ Advisory: https://rustsec.org/advisories/RUSTSEC-2026-0204
   ├ Affected versions of `fmt::Display` dereference the underlying pointer. This causes a invalid pointer dereference e.g., when a pointer created with `Atomic::null` or `Shared::null`. `fmt::Debug` impls and pre-0.9 `fmt::Display` impls, which do not dereference pointers, are not affected by this issue.
   ├ Announcement: https://github.com/crossbeam-rs/crossbeam/pull/1276
   ├ Solution: Upgrade to >=0.9.20 (try `cargo update -p crossbeam-epoch`)
   ├ crossbeam-epoch v0.9.18
     └── crossbeam-deque v0.8.5
         └── rayon-core v1.12.1
             └── rayon v1.10.0
                 └── criterion v0.5.1
                     ├── libdd-common v5.1.0
                     │   ├── libdd-capabilities-impl v3.0.0
                     │   │   ├── libdd-data-pipeline v7.0.0
                     │   │   ├── libdd-shared-runtime v2.0.0
                     │   │   │   ├── libdd-data-pipeline v7.0.0 (*)
                     │   │   │   ├── libdd-dogstatsd-client v4.0.0
                     │   │   │   │   ├── libdd-data-pipeline v7.0.0 (*)
                     │   │   │   │   └── libdd-trace-stats v6.0.0
                     │   │   │   │       └── libdd-data-pipeline v7.0.0 (*)
                     │   │   │   ├── libdd-telemetry v6.0.0
                     │   │   │   │   ├── libdd-data-pipeline v7.0.0 (*)
                     │   │   │   │   └── libdd-trace-stats v6.0.0 (*)
                     │   │   │   └── libdd-trace-stats v6.0.0 (*)
                     │   │   ├── (dev) libdd-telemetry v6.0.0 (*)
                     │   │   ├── libdd-trace-stats v6.0.0 (*)
                     │   │   └── libdd-trace-utils v9.0.0
                     │   │       ├── libdd-data-pipeline v7.0.0 (*)
                     │   │       ├── libdd-trace-obfuscation v5.0.0
                     │   │       │   └── libdd-trace-stats v6.0.0 (*)
                     │   │       ├── libdd-trace-stats v6.0.0 (*)
                     │   │       └── (dev) libdd-trace-utils v9.0.0 (*)
                     │   ├── libdd-data-pipeline v7.0.0 (*)
                     │   ├── libdd-dogstatsd-client v4.0.0 (*)
                     │   ├── libdd-shared-runtime v2.0.0 (*)
                     │   ├── libdd-telemetry v6.0.0 (*)
                     │   ├── libdd-trace-obfuscation v5.0.0 (*)
                     │   ├── libdd-trace-stats v6.0.0 (*)
                     │   └── libdd-trace-utils v9.0.0 (*)
                     ├── (dev) libdd-data-pipeline v7.0.0 (*)
                     ├── (dev) libdd-ddsketch v1.1.0
                     │   ├── libdd-data-pipeline v7.0.0 (*)
                     │   ├── libdd-telemetry v6.0.0 (*)
                     │   └── libdd-trace-stats v6.0.0 (*)
                     ├── (dev) libdd-trace-normalization v3.0.0
                     │   ├── libdd-data-pipeline v7.0.0 (*)
                     │   └── libdd-trace-utils v9.0.0 (*)
                     ├── (dev) libdd-trace-obfuscation v5.0.0 (*)
                     ├── (dev) libdd-trace-stats v6.0.0 (*)
                     └── (dev) libdd-trace-utils v9.0.0 (*)

error[unsound]: Rand is unsound with a custom logger using `rand::rng()`
    ┌─ /home/runner/work/libdatadog/libdatadog/Cargo.lock:218:1
    │
218 │ rand 0.8.5 registry+https://github.com/rust-lang/crates.io-index
    │ ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ unsound advisory detected
    │
    ├ ID: RUSTSEC-2026-0097
    ├ Advisory: https://rustsec.org/advisories/RUSTSEC-2026-0097
    ├ It has been reported (by [@lopopolo](https://github.com/lopopolo)) that the `rand` library is [unsound](https://rust-lang.github.io/unsafe-code-guidelines/glossary.html#soundness-of-code--of-a-library) (i.e. that safe code using the public API can cause Undefined Behaviour) when all the following conditions are met:
      
      - The `log` and `thread_rng` features are enabled
      - A [custom logger](https://docs.rs/log/latest/log/#implementing-a-logger) is defined
      - The custom logger accesses `rand::rng()` (previously `rand::thread_rng()`) and calls any `TryRng` (previously `RngCore`) methods on `ThreadRng`
      - The `ThreadRng` (attempts to) reseed while called from the custom logger (this happens every 64 kB of generated data)
      - Trace-level logging is enabled or warn-level logging is enabled and the random source (the `getrandom` crate) is unable to provide a new seed
      
      `TryRng` (previously `RngCore`) methods for `ThreadRng` use `unsafe` code to cast `*mut BlockRng<ReseedingCore>` to `&mut BlockRng<ReseedingCore>`. When all the above conditions are met this results in an aliased mutable reference, violating the Stacked Borrows rules. Miri is able to detect this violation in sample code. Since construction of [aliased mutable references is Undefined Behaviour](https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/nomicon/references.html), the behaviour of optimized builds is hard to predict.
    ├ Announcement: https://github.com/rust-random/rand/pull/1763
    ├ Solution: Upgrade to >=0.10.1 OR <0.10.0, >=0.9.3 OR <0.9.0, >=0.8.6 (try `cargo update -p rand`)
    ├ rand v0.8.5
      ├── libdd-common v5.1.0
      │   ├── libdd-capabilities-impl v3.0.0
      │   │   ├── libdd-data-pipeline v7.0.0
      │   │   ├── libdd-shared-runtime v2.0.0
      │   │   │   ├── libdd-data-pipeline v7.0.0 (*)
      │   │   │   ├── libdd-dogstatsd-client v4.0.0
      │   │   │   │   ├── libdd-data-pipeline v7.0.0 (*)
      │   │   │   │   └── libdd-trace-stats v6.0.0
      │   │   │   │       └── libdd-data-pipeline v7.0.0 (*)
      │   │   │   ├── libdd-telemetry v6.0.0
      │   │   │   │   ├── libdd-data-pipeline v7.0.0 (*)
      │   │   │   │   └── libdd-trace-stats v6.0.0 (*)
      │   │   │   └── libdd-trace-stats v6.0.0 (*)
      │   │   ├── (dev) libdd-telemetry v6.0.0 (*)
      │   │   ├── libdd-trace-stats v6.0.0 (*)
      │   │   └── libdd-trace-utils v9.0.0
      │   │       ├── libdd-data-pipeline v7.0.0 (*)
      │   │       ├── libdd-trace-obfuscation v5.0.0
      │   │       │   └── libdd-trace-stats v6.0.0 (*)
      │   │       ├── libdd-trace-stats v6.0.0 (*)
      │   │       └── (dev) libdd-trace-utils v9.0.0 (*)
      │   ├── libdd-data-pipeline v7.0.0 (*)
      │   ├── libdd-dogstatsd-client v4.0.0 (*)
      │   ├── libdd-shared-runtime v2.0.0 (*)
      │   ├── libdd-telemetry v6.0.0 (*)
      │   ├── libdd-trace-obfuscation v5.0.0 (*)
      │   ├── libdd-trace-stats v6.0.0 (*)
      │   └── libdd-trace-utils v9.0.0 (*)
      ├── (dev) libdd-data-pipeline v7.0.0 (*)
      ├── (dev) libdd-ddsketch v1.1.0
      │   ├── libdd-data-pipeline v7.0.0 (*)
      │   ├── libdd-telemetry v6.0.0 (*)
      │   └── libdd-trace-stats v6.0.0 (*)
      ├── (dev) libdd-trace-normalization v3.0.0
      │   ├── libdd-data-pipeline v7.0.0 (*)
      │   └── libdd-trace-utils v9.0.0 (*)
      ├── (dev) libdd-trace-stats v6.0.0 (*)
      ├── libdd-trace-utils v9.0.0 (*)
      └── proptest v1.5.0
          └── (dev) libdd-tinybytes v1.1.1
              ├── libdd-data-pipeline v7.0.0 (*)
              ├── (dev) libdd-tinybytes v1.1.1 (*)
              └── libdd-trace-utils v9.0.0 (*)

error[vulnerability]: Denial of Service via Stack Exhaustion
    ┌─ /home/runner/work/libdatadog/libdatadog/Cargo.lock:288:1
    │
288 │ time 0.3.41 registry+https://github.com/rust-lang/crates.io-index
    │ ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ security vulnerability detected
    │
    ├ ID: RUSTSEC-2026-0009
    ├ Advisory: https://rustsec.org/advisories/RUSTSEC-2026-0009
    ├ ## Impact
      
      When user-provided input is provided to any type that parses with the RFC 2822 format, a denial of
      service attack via stack exhaustion is possible. The attack relies on formally deprecated and
      rarely-used features that are part of the RFC 2822 format used in a malicious manner. Ordinary,
      non-malicious input will never encounter this scenario.
      
      ## Patches
      
      A limit to the depth of recursion was added in v0.3.47. From this version, an error will be returned
      rather than exhausting the stack.
      
      ## Workarounds
      
      Limiting the length of user input is the simplest way to avoid stack exhaustion, as the amount of
      the stack consumed would be at most a factor of the length of the input.
    ├ Announcement: https://github.com/time-rs/time/blob/main/CHANGELOG.md#0347-2026-02-05
    ├ Solution: Upgrade to >=0.3.47 (try `cargo update -p time`)
    ├ time v0.3.41
      └── tracing-appender v0.2.3
          └── libdd-log v1.0.0
              └── (dev) libdd-data-pipeline v7.0.0

advisories FAILED, bans ok, sources ok

Updated: 2026-07-24 17:18:54 UTC | Commit: 638c931 | dependency-check job results

@datadog-datadog-prod-us1-2

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Tests

🎉 All green!

🧪 All tests passed
❄️ No new flaky tests detected

🎯 Code Coverage (details)
Patch Coverage: 95.25%
Overall Coverage: 74.77% (+0.20%)

This comment will be updated automatically if new data arrives.
🔗 Commit SHA: b7fb78d | Docs | Datadog PR Page | Give us feedback!

@dd-octo-sts

dd-octo-sts Bot commented Jul 24, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Artifact Size Benchmark Report

aarch64-alpine-linux-musl
Artifact Baseline Commit Change
/aarch64-alpine-linux-musl/lib/libdatadog_profiling.so 8.13 MB 8.20 MB +.77% (+64.46 KB) 🔍
/aarch64-alpine-linux-musl/lib/libdatadog_profiling.a 88.33 MB 88.84 MB +.57% (+523.07 KB) 🔍
aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu
Artifact Baseline Commit Change
/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/lib/libdatadog_profiling.so 10.94 MB 11.03 MB +.79% (+88.91 KB) 🔍
/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/lib/libdatadog_profiling.a 99.62 MB 100.13 MB +.51% (+527.35 KB) 🔍
libdatadog-x64-windows
Artifact Baseline Commit Change
/libdatadog-x64-windows/debug/dynamic/datadog_profiling_ffi.dll 26.65 MB 26.86 MB +.79% (+217.00 KB) 🔍
/libdatadog-x64-windows/debug/dynamic/datadog_profiling_ffi.lib 89.18 KB 89.18 KB 0% (0 B) 👌
/libdatadog-x64-windows/debug/dynamic/datadog_profiling_ffi.pdb 191.80 MB 195.56 MB +1.96% (+3.76 MB) ⚠️
/libdatadog-x64-windows/debug/static/datadog_profiling_ffi.lib 1.04 GB 1.11 GB +6.19% (+66.28 MB) 🚨
/libdatadog-x64-windows/release/dynamic/datadog_profiling_ffi.dll 8.68 MB 8.74 MB +.72% (+64.50 KB) 🔍
/libdatadog-x64-windows/release/dynamic/datadog_profiling_ffi.lib 89.18 KB 89.18 KB 0% (0 B) 👌
/libdatadog-x64-windows/release/dynamic/datadog_profiling_ffi.pdb 25.40 MB 25.55 MB +.61% (+160.00 KB) 🔍
/libdatadog-x64-windows/release/static/datadog_profiling_ffi.lib 50.65 MB 50.96 MB +.60% (+313.13 KB) 🔍
libdatadog-x86-windows
Artifact Baseline Commit Change
/libdatadog-x86-windows/debug/dynamic/datadog_profiling_ffi.dll 23.21 MB 23.38 MB +.71% (+171.00 KB) 🔍
/libdatadog-x86-windows/debug/dynamic/datadog_profiling_ffi.lib 90.58 KB 90.58 KB 0% (0 B) 👌
/libdatadog-x86-windows/debug/dynamic/datadog_profiling_ffi.pdb 196.50 MB 200.27 MB +1.92% (+3.77 MB) ⚠️
/libdatadog-x86-windows/debug/static/datadog_profiling_ffi.lib 1.03 GB 1.09 GB +6.28% (+66.56 MB) 🚨
/libdatadog-x86-windows/release/dynamic/datadog_profiling_ffi.dll 6.70 MB 6.76 MB +.93% (+64.00 KB) 🔍
/libdatadog-x86-windows/release/dynamic/datadog_profiling_ffi.lib 90.58 KB 90.58 KB 0% (0 B) 👌
/libdatadog-x86-windows/release/dynamic/datadog_profiling_ffi.pdb 27.32 MB 27.51 MB +.68% (+192.00 KB) 🔍
/libdatadog-x86-windows/release/static/datadog_profiling_ffi.lib 48.23 MB 48.58 MB +.72% (+356.88 KB) 🔍
x86_64-alpine-linux-musl
Artifact Baseline Commit Change
/x86_64-alpine-linux-musl/lib/libdatadog_profiling.a 78.78 MB 79.19 MB +.51% (+414.80 KB) 🔍
/x86_64-alpine-linux-musl/lib/libdatadog_profiling.so 9.07 MB 9.13 MB +.69% (+64.46 KB) 🔍
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Artifact Baseline Commit Change
/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/lib/libdatadog_profiling.a 94.28 MB 94.76 MB +.51% (+494.71 KB) 🔍
/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/lib/libdatadog_profiling.so 11.04 MB 11.12 MB +.74% (+84.55 KB) 🔍

@pr-commenter

pr-commenter Bot commented Jul 24, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Benchmarks

Comparison

Benchmark execution time: 2026-07-24 17:47:41

Comparing candidate commit b7fb78d in PR branch brian.marks/otlp-grpc-transport with baseline commit ef95bde in branch main.

Found 5 performance improvements and 11 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 126 metrics, 0 unstable metrics.

Explanation

This is an A/B test comparing a candidate commit's performance against that of a baseline commit. Performance changes are noted in the tables below as:

  • 🟩 = significantly better candidate vs. baseline
  • 🟥 = significantly worse candidate vs. baseline

We compute a confidence interval (CI) over the relative difference of means between metrics from the candidate and baseline commits, considering the baseline as the reference.

If the CI is entirely outside the configured SIGNIFICANT_IMPACT_THRESHOLD (or the deprecated UNCONFIDENCE_THRESHOLD), the change is considered significant.

Feel free to reach out to #apm-benchmarking-platform on Slack if you have any questions.

More details about the CI and significant changes

You can imagine this CI as a range of values that is likely to contain the true difference of means between the candidate and baseline commits.

CIs of the difference of means are often centered around 0%, because often changes are not that big:

---------------------------------(------|---^--------)-------------------------------->
                              -0.6%    0%  0.3%     +1.2%
                                 |          |        |
         lower bound of the CI --'          |        |
sample mean (center of the CI) -------------'        |
         upper bound of the CI ----------------------'

As described above, a change is considered significant if the CI is entirely outside the configured SIGNIFICANT_IMPACT_THRESHOLD (or the deprecated UNCONFIDENCE_THRESHOLD).

For instance, for an execution time metric, this confidence interval indicates a significantly worse performance:

----------------------------------------|---------|---(---------^---------)---------->
                                       0%        1%  1.3%      2.2%      3.1%
                                                  |   |         |         |
       significant impact threshold --------------'   |         |         |
                      lower bound of CI --------------'         |         |
       sample mean (center of the CI) --------------------------'         |
                      upper bound of CI ----------------------------------'

scenario:vec_map/as_deduped_map/already_deduped/16

  • 🟩 execution_time [-1.223ns; -1.201ns] or [-4.827%; -4.742%]

scenario:vec_map/as_deduped_map/already_deduped/8

  • 🟩 execution_time [-1.219ns; -1.206ns] or [-7.773%; -7.684%]

scenario:vec_map/as_deduped_map/needs_dedup_1_in_2/8

  • 🟥 execution_time [+19.196ns; +19.419ns] or [+4.109%; +4.157%]

scenario:vec_map/as_deduped_map/needs_dedup_1_in_4/8

  • 🟥 execution_time [+21.675ns; +21.880ns] or [+5.470%; +5.522%]

scenario:vec_map/contains_key/16

  • 🟥 execution_time [+29.071ns; +29.637ns] or [+11.662%; +11.889%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-6822496.163op/s; -6698579.323op/s] or [-10.629%; -10.436%]

scenario:vec_map/get_hit/128

  • 🟥 execution_time [+1.171µs; +1.178µs] or [+9.427%; +9.484%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-893006.688op/s; -887751.327op/s] or [-8.664%; -8.613%]

scenario:vec_map/get_hit/16

  • 🟥 execution_time [+74.747ns; +74.986ns] or [+35.170%; +35.282%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-19650680.216op/s; -19573240.217op/s] or [-26.102%; -25.999%]

scenario:vec_map/get_hit/64

  • 🟥 execution_time [+313.909ns; +317.737ns] or [+9.207%; +9.319%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-1601194.980op/s; -1581699.528op/s] or [-8.530%; -8.426%]

scenario:vec_map/get_hit/8

  • 🟩 execution_time [-7.463ns; -7.283ns] or [-12.169%; -11.876%]
  • 🟩 throughput [+17623734.587op/s; +18000155.038op/s] or [+13.509%; +13.798%]

scenario:vec_map/get_miss/16

  • 🟥 execution_time [+0.935ns; +1.039ns] or [+9.948%; +11.054%]

scenario:vec_map/get_miss/8

  • 🟩 execution_time [-1.587ns; -1.492ns] or [-21.143%; -19.873%]

Benchmark execution time: 2026-07-24 18:04:24

Comparing candidate commit b7fb78d in PR branch brian.marks/otlp-grpc-transport with baseline commit ef95bde in branch main.

Found 6 performance improvements and 17 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 154 metrics, 10 unstable metrics.

Explanation

This is an A/B test comparing a candidate commit's performance against that of a baseline commit. Performance changes are noted in the tables below as:

  • 🟩 = significantly better candidate vs. baseline
  • 🟥 = significantly worse candidate vs. baseline

We compute a confidence interval (CI) over the relative difference of means between metrics from the candidate and baseline commits, considering the baseline as the reference.

If the CI is entirely outside the configured SIGNIFICANT_IMPACT_THRESHOLD (or the deprecated UNCONFIDENCE_THRESHOLD), the change is considered significant.

Feel free to reach out to #apm-benchmarking-platform on Slack if you have any questions.

More details about the CI and significant changes

You can imagine this CI as a range of values that is likely to contain the true difference of means between the candidate and baseline commits.

CIs of the difference of means are often centered around 0%, because often changes are not that big:

---------------------------------(------|---^--------)-------------------------------->
                              -0.6%    0%  0.3%     +1.2%
                                 |          |        |
         lower bound of the CI --'          |        |
sample mean (center of the CI) -------------'        |
         upper bound of the CI ----------------------'

As described above, a change is considered significant if the CI is entirely outside the configured SIGNIFICANT_IMPACT_THRESHOLD (or the deprecated UNCONFIDENCE_THRESHOLD).

For instance, for an execution time metric, this confidence interval indicates a significantly worse performance:

----------------------------------------|---------|---(---------^---------)---------->
                                       0%        1%  1.3%      2.2%      3.1%
                                                  |   |         |         |
       significant impact threshold --------------'   |         |         |
                      lower bound of CI --------------'         |         |
       sample mean (center of the CI) --------------------------'         |
                      upper bound of CI ----------------------------------'

scenario:alloc_free/system/4096

  • 🟩 execution_time [-10.215ns; -10.009ns] or [-10.899%; -10.680%]

scenario:credit_card/is_card_number/ 3782-8224-6310-005

  • 🟥 execution_time [+3.848µs; +4.379µs] or [+5.012%; +5.704%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-715418.755op/s; -625181.100op/s] or [-5.489%; -4.797%]

scenario:credit_card/is_card_number/ 378282246310005

  • 🟩 execution_time [-7.927µs; -7.846µs] or [-9.730%; -9.631%]
  • 🟩 throughput [+1308653.166op/s; +1323064.143op/s] or [+10.661%; +10.778%]

scenario:credit_card/is_card_number/378282246310005

  • 🟥 execution_time [+5.492µs; +5.559µs] or [+8.428%; +8.531%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-1206298.402op/s; -1192645.967op/s] or [-7.860%; -7.771%]

scenario:credit_card/is_card_number/37828224631000521389798

  • 🟥 execution_time [+7.408µs; +7.457µs] or [+16.189%; +16.296%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-3065394.037op/s; -3042321.695op/s] or [-14.027%; -13.921%]

scenario:credit_card/is_card_number_no_luhn/ 378282246310005

  • 🟥 execution_time [+4.919µs; +4.956µs] or [+9.195%; +9.263%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-1584713.337op/s; -1573695.047op/s] or [-8.478%; -8.419%]

scenario:credit_card/is_card_number_no_luhn/378282246310005

  • 🟥 execution_time [+5.250µs; +5.298µs] or [+10.443%; +10.538%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-1896164.637op/s; -1880455.509op/s] or [-9.533%; -9.454%]

scenario:credit_card/is_card_number_no_luhn/37828224631000521389798

  • 🟥 execution_time [+7.338µs; +7.397µs] or [+16.026%; +16.153%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-3039504.246op/s; -3014338.040op/s] or [-13.918%; -13.802%]

scenario:glob_matcher/ascii_exact_match/wall_time

  • 🟥 execution_time [+1.962ns; +2.094ns] or [+7.349%; +7.843%]

scenario:glob_matcher/ascii_wildcard_question_match/wall_time

  • 🟩 execution_time [-21.369ns; -21.345ns] or [-36.701%; -36.660%]

scenario:glob_matcher/ascii_wildcard_star_match/wall_time

  • 🟩 execution_time [-21.276ns; -21.258ns] or [-36.577%; -36.547%]

scenario:glob_matcher/unicode_pattern_ascii_subject/wall_time

  • 🟥 execution_time [+4.177ns; +4.221ns] or [+4.611%; +4.660%]

scenario:ip_address/quantize_peer_ip_address_benchmark

  • 🟩 execution_time [-242.639ns; -223.852ns] or [-4.595%; -4.239%]

scenario:sql/obfuscate_sql_string

  • 🟥 execution_time [+19.487µs; +19.771µs] or [+7.001%; +7.103%]

scenario:trace_buffer/8_senders/no_delay

  • 🟥 execution_time [+300.092µs; +349.187µs] or [+4.768%; +5.547%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-61217.433op/s; -52233.927op/s] or [-5.348%; -4.563%]

Candidate

Omitted due to size.

Baseline

Omitted due to size.


/// Per-request OTLP gRPC trace exporter configuration.
// Not yet wired to the trace exporter's send loop; exercised by tests only.
#[allow(dead_code)]

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

To be wired in #2171


/// Validate a gRPC endpoint (plaintext `http://` only) and build the transport.
// Not yet wired to the trace exporter's send loop; exercised by tests only.
#[allow(dead_code)]

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

To be wired in #2171


/// Send one OTLP trace export request over gRPC. Bounds connect + RPC with a single timeout.
// Not yet wired to the trace exporter's send loop; exercised by tests only.
#[allow(dead_code)]

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

To be wired in #2171

@bm1549
bm1549 marked this pull request as ready for review July 24, 2026 21:34
@bm1549
bm1549 requested review from a team as code owners July 24, 2026 21:34
@bm1549
bm1549 requested review from mabdinur and removed request for a team July 24, 2026 21:34
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

AI Generated PR largely written by AI tools data-pipeline

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant