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

Remove unnecessary argument in CommonConfigure calls #25651

Merged

Conversation

jose-manuel-almaza
Copy link
Contributor

What does this PR do?

Remove unnecessary argument in CommonConfigure calls

Motivation

Dead code code smell
In the context of a method argument, if an argument is declared but not used within the method body, it indicates potential dead code. This can clutter the codebase and may lead to confusion for other developers, so it's generally considered good practice to remove such unused arguments to keep the code clean and maintainable.

Additional Notes

Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs

Describe how to test/QA your changes

It does not require new tests as it is a code smell refactor. No new functionality is added.
The condition is that the tests existing until now continue to work in the same way.

@bits-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

bits-bot commented May 16, 2024

CLA assistant check
All committers have signed the CLA.

@pr-commenter
Copy link

pr-commenter bot commented May 16, 2024

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Run ID: 836104a1-e19e-4295-afa4-3d337aadabb8
Baseline: 4d010ee
Comparison: 2a8eec5

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.

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf experiment goal Δ mean % Δ mean % CI
pycheck_1000_100byte_tags % cpu utilization +0.81 [-4.12, +5.74]
basic_py_check % cpu utilization +0.32 [-2.13, +2.77]
trace_agent_json ingress throughput +0.01 [-0.01, +0.02]
uds_dogstatsd_to_api ingress throughput +0.01 [-0.20, +0.21]
trace_agent_msgpack ingress throughput +0.00 [-0.00, +0.00]
tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude ingress throughput -0.02 [-0.06, +0.02]
otel_to_otel_logs ingress throughput -0.06 [-0.43, +0.31]
file_tree memory utilization -0.07 [-0.18, +0.04]
uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu % cpu utilization -0.09 [-2.98, +2.80]
tcp_syslog_to_blackhole ingress throughput -0.27 [-21.48, +20.94]
idle memory utilization -0.55 [-0.59, -0.51]

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
Copy link

pr-commenter bot commented May 16, 2024

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=34462008 --os-family=ubuntu

@jose-manuel-almaza jose-manuel-almaza added the qa/done Skip QA week as QA was done before merge and regressions are covered by tests label May 16, 2024
@jose-manuel-almaza jose-manuel-almaza marked this pull request as ready for review May 16, 2024 12:48
@jose-manuel-almaza jose-manuel-almaza requested review from a team as code owners May 16, 2024 12:48
pkg/collector/corechecks/checkbase.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Member

@amenasria amenasria left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM for Agent CI Exp owned files !

Copy link
Contributor

@NouemanKHAL NouemanKHAL left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nice! 💯

NouemanKHAL

This comment was marked as duplicate.

@jose-manuel-almaza jose-manuel-almaza merged commit 427f485 into main May 16, 2024
279 checks passed
@jose-manuel-almaza jose-manuel-almaza deleted the jose/remove-unnecessary-argument-in-commonconfigure branch May 16, 2024 17:53
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the 7.55.0 milestone May 16, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
changelog/no-changelog component/system-probe qa/done Skip QA week as QA was done before merge and regressions are covered by tests team/platform-integrations
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet