[CI] Don't build the Agent for Static Analysis

[amenasria]

trafficstars

What does this PR do?

I would first like to thanks @pgimalac for his sharp eye. This job has been building the Agent for static analysis since Oct 22, 2021.

This PR remove building the Agent in the CodeQL Analysis job. This will reduce CodeQL job duration by 66% 😳.

Motivation

Additional Notes

Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs

Describe how to test/QA your changes

Reviewer's Checklist

• [ ] If known, an appropriate milestone has been selected; otherwise the Triage milestone is set.
• [ ] Use the major_change label if your change either has a major impact on the code base, is impacting multiple teams or is changing important well-established internals of the Agent. This label will be use during QA to make sure each team pay extra attention to the changed behavior. For any customer facing change use a releasenote.
• [ ] A release note has been added or the changelog/no-changelog label has been applied.
• [ ] Changed code has automated tests for its functionality.
• [ ] Adequate QA/testing plan information is provided. Except if the qa/skip-qa label, with required either qa/done or qa/no-code-change labels, are applied.
• [ ] At least one team/.. label has been applied, indicating the team(s) that should QA this change.
• [ ] If applicable, docs team has been notified or an issue has been opened on the documentation repo.
• [ ] If applicable, the need-change/operator and need-change/helm labels have been applied.
• [ ] If applicable, the k8s/<min-version> label, indicating the lowest Kubernetes version compatible with this feature.
• [ ] If applicable, the config template has been updated.

[chouquette]

Are we sure that:

• No required files are generated at build time
• This doesn't impede the capacity of codeql to analyze some of our files?

Oh wait this is just the agent build, not the full omnibus build, so dependencies aren't involved and my questions should be safely ignored :) If there are stats on how many files were analyzed it would still be nice to check that it didn't go down I guess!

[pr-commenter[bot]]

Bloop Bleep... Dogbot Here

Regression Detector Results

Run ID: b0914e46-7ebe-436b-9a0d-988395ef7005 Baseline: 4c525c84af8d1f940379cc7787b1a690208a7650 Comparison: e423869adbfcd038e207f263bbe667d511ecdf40 Total CPUs: 7

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.

Experiments ignored for regressions

Regressions in experiments with settings containing erratic: true are ignored.

perf	experiment	goal	Δ mean %	Δ mean % CI
➖	file_to_blackhole	% cpu utilization	-0.03	[-6.61, +6.54]
➖	idle	memory utilization	-0.13	[-0.16, -0.10]
➖	file_tree	memory utilization	-0.23	[-0.30, -0.17]

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf	experiment	goal	Δ mean %	Δ mean % CI
➖	uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu	% cpu utilization	+1.80	[+0.33, +3.26]
➖	otel_to_otel_logs	ingress throughput	+1.64	[+0.87, +2.41]
➖	process_agent_real_time_mode	memory utilization	+0.16	[+0.12, +0.21]
➖	trace_agent_msgpack	ingress throughput	+0.07	[+0.04, +0.09]
➖	trace_agent_json	ingress throughput	+0.02	[-0.03, +0.06]
➖	tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude	ingress throughput	-0.00	[-0.06, +0.06]
➖	uds_dogstatsd_to_api	ingress throughput	-0.00	[-0.04, +0.04]
➖	file_to_blackhole	% cpu utilization	-0.03	[-6.61, +6.54]
➖	process_agent_standard_check_with_stats	memory utilization	-0.12	[-0.16, -0.08]
➖	idle	memory utilization	-0.13	[-0.16, -0.10]
➖	file_tree	memory utilization	-0.23	[-0.30, -0.17]
➖	process_agent_standard_check	memory utilization	-0.57	[-0.61, -0.52]
➖	tcp_syslog_to_blackhole	ingress throughput	-0.67	[-0.73, -0.62]

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:

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".