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

logs/sds: support excluded keywords in SDS rules. #28701

Merged
merged 11 commits into from
Sep 26, 2024

Conversation

remeh
Copy link
Contributor

@remeh remeh commented Aug 23, 2024

APR-199

What does this PR do?

Add support for "excluded keywords" when receiving an SDS rule configuration and creating the SDS scanner.

Describe how to test/QA your changes

  • Run the Agent in an org with SDS
  • Use a credit card rule and validate with included keywords and validate it is working as intended (both using "Use recommended keywords" and using a custom list keyword)
  • Uncheck "Use recommended keywords" and remove all keywords from the "keyword dictionary" editbox
    • validate that when no excluded keywords (e.g. traceid) is around the matching value, the redaction happens
    • validate that when an excluded keywords is around the matching value, no redaction happens

@pr-commenter
Copy link

pr-commenter bot commented Aug 23, 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=45019309 --os-family=ubuntu

Note: This applies to commit 04df483

@pr-commenter
Copy link

pr-commenter bot commented Aug 23, 2024

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Run ID: cb95a4b3-f1ed-4ac6-973b-b22605d880e1 Metrics dashboard Target profiles

Baseline: 42db7b3
Comparison: 04df483

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 trials links
idle memory utilization +0.54 [+0.49, +0.60] 1 Logs
file_tree memory utilization +0.49 [+0.36, +0.63] 1 Logs
pycheck_lots_of_tags % cpu utilization +0.36 [-2.12, +2.83] 1 Logs
tcp_syslog_to_blackhole ingress throughput +0.22 [+0.17, +0.27] 1 Logs
otel_to_otel_logs ingress throughput +0.01 [-0.80, +0.82] 1 Logs
uds_dogstatsd_to_api ingress throughput +0.01 [-0.08, +0.11] 1 Logs
tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude ingress throughput +0.00 [-0.01, +0.01] 1 Logs
uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu % cpu utilization -0.32 [-1.05, +0.42] 1 Logs
basic_py_check % cpu utilization -0.80 [-3.45, +1.85] 1 Logs

Bounds Checks

perf experiment bounds_check_name replicates_passed
idle memory_usage 10/10

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".

Copy link
Contributor

@StephenWakely StephenWakely left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good to me!

@remeh
Copy link
Contributor Author

remeh commented Sep 26, 2024

/merge

@dd-devflow
Copy link

dd-devflow bot commented Sep 26, 2024

🚂 MergeQueue: pull request added to the queue

The median merge time in main is 23m.

Use /merge -c to cancel this operation!

@dd-mergequeue dd-mergequeue bot merged commit 621fcab into main Sep 26, 2024
226 checks passed
@dd-mergequeue dd-mergequeue bot deleted the remeh/sds-excluded-keywords branch September 26, 2024 12:06
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the 7.59.0 milestone Sep 26, 2024
@StephenWakely StephenWakely added the qa/done Skip QA week as QA was done before merge and regressions are covered by tests label Sep 26, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
changelog/no-changelog qa/done Skip QA week as QA was done before merge and regressions are covered by tests team/agent-processing-and-routing
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants