datadog-agent
datadog-agent copied to clipboard
Bump github.com/cri-o/ocicni from 0.4.0 to 0.4.1
Bumps github.com/cri-o/ocicni from 0.4.0 to 0.4.1.
Release notes
Sourced from github.com/cri-o/ocicni's releases.
v0.4.1
What's Changed
- Add cgroupPath capability arg by
@squeedin cri-o/ocicni#141- Add support for FreeBSD by
@dfrin cri-o/ocicni#135- Refactor: add test to verify update event handle by
@amarlearningin cri-o/ocicni#165- pkg/ocicni: add PodAnnotations to RuntimeConfig by
@sohankunkerkarin cri-o/ocicni#166New Contributors
@sohankunkerkarmade their first contribution in cri-o/ocicni#166@amarlearningmade their first contribution in cri-o/ocicni#165@dfrmade their first contribution in cri-o/ocicni#135Full Changelog: https://github.com/cri-o/ocicni/compare/v0.4.0...v0.4.1
Commits
00ce879Merge pull request #172 from cri-o/dependabot/go_modules/golang.org/x/net-0.17.0191f911build(deps): bump golang.org/x/net from 0.14.0 to 0.17.07c84931Merge pull request #171 from cri-o/dependabot/go_modules/github.com/onsi/gink...bc11739build(deps): bump github.com/onsi/ginkgo/v2 from 2.12.1 to 2.13.04e37d50Merge pull request #170 from cri-o/dependabot/go_modules/github.com/onsi/gome...a915a71build(deps): bump github.com/onsi/gomega from 1.27.10 to 1.28.0bbe988aMerge pull request #169 from cri-o/dependabot/go_modules/github.com/onsi/gink...4ff5a3abuild(deps): bump github.com/onsi/ginkgo/v2 from 2.12.0 to 2.12.1ccf337dMerge pull request #135 from dfr/freebsda8b0309Merge pull request #168 from cri-o/dependabot/go_modules/github.com/onsi/gink...- Additional commits viewable in compare view
Dependabot will resolve any conflicts with this PR as long as you don't alter it yourself. You can also trigger a rebase manually by commenting @dependabot rebase.
Dependabot commands and options
You can trigger Dependabot actions by commenting on this PR:
@dependabot rebasewill rebase this PR@dependabot recreatewill recreate this PR, overwriting any edits that have been made to it@dependabot mergewill merge this PR after your CI passes on it@dependabot squash and mergewill squash and merge this PR after your CI passes on it@dependabot cancel mergewill cancel a previously requested merge and block automerging@dependabot reopenwill reopen this PR if it is closed@dependabot closewill close this PR and stop Dependabot recreating it. You can achieve the same result by closing it manually@dependabot show <dependency name> ignore conditionswill show all of the ignore conditions of the specified dependency@dependabot ignore this major versionwill close this PR and stop Dependabot creating any more for this major version (unless you reopen the PR or upgrade to it yourself)@dependabot ignore this minor versionwill close this PR and stop Dependabot creating any more for this minor version (unless you reopen the PR or upgrade to it yourself)@dependabot ignore this dependencywill close this PR and stop Dependabot creating any more for this dependency (unless you reopen the PR or upgrade to it yourself)
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=30049980 --os-family=ubuntu
Regression Detector
Regression Detector Results
Run ID: e3ec1729-0dfa-481c-b094-6ca88c3f174c Baseline: 30f826b9b34caecaa3995e5f0fdcfc28c7e4dadd Comparison: 28f2d524c44a7304b75c1b4f4e1724f07a5af6f0
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 | +15.40 | [+8.11, +22.69] |
Fine details of change detection per experiment
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ❌ | file_to_blackhole | % cpu utilization | +15.40 | [+8.11, +22.69] |
| ➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | +1.19 | [+1.08, +1.30] |
| ➖ | pycheck_1000_100byte_tags | % cpu utilization | +1.13 | [-4.09, +6.35] |
| ➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | +0.93 | [+0.82, +1.05] |
| ➖ | process_agent_real_time_mode | memory utilization | +0.68 | [+0.63, +0.72] |
| ➖ | process_agent_standard_check_with_stats | memory utilization | +0.54 | [+0.50, +0.58] |
| ➖ | process_agent_standard_check | memory utilization | +0.14 | [+0.10, +0.18] |
| ➖ | otel_to_otel_logs | ingress throughput | +0.12 | [-0.30, +0.54] |
| ➖ | trace_agent_msgpack | ingress throughput | +0.02 | [+0.01, +0.03] |
| ➖ | trace_agent_json | ingress throughput | +0.01 | [-0.02, +0.04] |
| ➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [+0.00, +0.01] |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.20, +0.20] |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | -0.35 | [-3.20, +2.50] |
| ➖ | idle | memory utilization | -0.40 | [-0.44, -0.36] |
| ➖ | basic_py_check | % cpu utilization | -1.32 | [-3.62, +0.97] |
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".
Superseded by #23854.