feat(ci): New tasks to lint aws ssm get-parameter calls

[chouetz]

What does this PR do?

Add 2 new tasks for future auto linting of aws ssm parameters

• one task to list params
• one to warn about "misusage" of aws ssm get-parameter calls

This PR just creates the new linters, I will activate with a follow-up

Motivation

incident-25366: improve knowledge of our parameters in case of disclosure

Additional Notes

This PR must be reviewed by commits. It includes a refactoring of some linters tasks

Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs

Describe how to test/QA your changes

[pr-commenter[bot]]

Bloop Bleep... Dogbot Here

Regression Detector Results

Run ID: 2c4a7877-afb3-4b8c-8714-3a617ee6d81d Baseline: d6a7e7927b96c58b1ca37d5a45453a1a457e3958 Comparison: 287de9275eb1b1670b47781d28fb035611c8f7bf

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	+0.41	[-6.18, +7.01]

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf	experiment	goal	Δ mean %	Δ mean % CI
➖	basic_py_check	% cpu utilization	+3.41	[+1.13, +5.70]
➖	process_agent_real_time_mode	memory utilization	+0.72	[+0.67, +0.77]
➖	file_tree	memory utilization	+0.58	[+0.50, +0.66]
➖	file_to_blackhole	% cpu utilization	+0.41	[-6.18, +7.01]
➖	process_agent_standard_check_with_stats	memory utilization	+0.27	[+0.23, +0.31]
➖	idle	memory utilization	+0.12	[+0.08, +0.16]
➖	trace_agent_json	ingress throughput	+0.04	[-0.00, +0.09]
➖	trace_agent_msgpack	ingress throughput	+0.03	[+0.01, +0.05]
➖	uds_dogstatsd_to_api	ingress throughput	+0.00	[-0.00, +0.00]
➖	tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude	ingress throughput	-0.00	[-0.00, +0.00]
➖	process_agent_standard_check	memory utilization	-0.19	[-0.23, -0.15]
➖	uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu	% cpu utilization	-0.48	[-1.94, +0.98]
➖	otel_to_otel_logs	ingress throughput	-0.63	[-1.27, +0.01]
➖	tcp_syslog_to_blackhole	ingress throughput	-0.77	[-0.82, -0.72]

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".

[pr-commenter[bot]]

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=30310540 --os-family=ubuntu

[pr-commenter[bot]]

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Run ID: 34c24cfb-3c38-45e4-9cb2-c4e540767df8 Baseline: 348e0e117b9bc014e0630dc60a1dcc9719182ff1 Comparison: 0eb16d2d74fd8313b93f78f6bcb4ad773c3f1b85

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	+0.69	[-5.63, +7.01]

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf	experiment	goal	Δ mean %	Δ mean % CI
➖	tcp_syslog_to_blackhole	ingress throughput	+0.85	[+0.76, +0.93]
➖	file_to_blackhole	% cpu utilization	+0.69	[-5.63, +7.01]
➖	file_tree	memory utilization	+0.40	[+0.31, +0.48]
➖	process_agent_standard_check	memory utilization	+0.17	[+0.12, +0.22]
➖	process_agent_standard_check_with_stats	memory utilization	+0.15	[+0.11, +0.19]
➖	uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu	% cpu utilization	+0.10	[-2.69, +2.90]
➖	trace_agent_json	ingress throughput	+0.03	[+0.00, +0.05]
➖	basic_py_check	% cpu utilization	+0.01	[-2.44, +2.46]
➖	uds_dogstatsd_to_api	ingress throughput	+0.00	[-0.20, +0.20]
➖	tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude	ingress throughput	-0.01	[-0.04, +0.03]
➖	idle	memory utilization	-0.02	[-0.05, +0.02]
➖	trace_agent_msgpack	ingress throughput	-0.02	[-0.03, -0.01]
➖	process_agent_real_time_mode	memory utilization	-0.10	[-0.14, -0.06]
➖	otel_to_otel_logs	ingress throughput	-0.37	[-0.80, +0.07]
➖	pycheck_1000_100byte_tags	% cpu utilization	-1.00	[-5.89, +3.88]

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".

[agent-platform-auto-pr[bot]]

[Fast Unit Tests Report]

On pipeline 31251639 (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

[chouetz]

I feel like the renaming of all linter tasks should have been in separate PR for clarity and simplicity...

It's 2 distinct commits, I guess this is quite similar (and we don't have a strong inclination to prefer one over the other) I will merge with rebase and merge for the sake of git history

[chouetz]

/merge -m rebase

[dd-devflow[bot]]

:steam_locomotive: MergeQueue

Pull request added to the queue.

This build is next! (estimated merge in less than 28m)

Use /merge -c to cancel this operation!