Skip to content

[Test Optimization] Add NUnit 5 support - #9407

Open
tonyredondo wants to merge 12 commits into
masterfrom
feat/nunit-5
Open

tonyredondo wants to merge 12 commits into
masterfrom
feat/nunit-5

Conversation

@tonyredondo

@tonyredondo tonyredondo commented Oct 14, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Summary of changes

Add NUnit 5 support to Test Optimization, including dependency skips, ITR and test management decisions that preserve NUnit dependency semantics, and passing native Repeat/Retry results.

Reason for change

NUnit 5 keeps the existing execution signatures, but dependency skips bypass child execution/completion hooks, and NUnit decides which dependents run from prerequisite results that ITR and test management can rewrite. Its AssemblyVersion is fixed at 5.0.0.0 (NUnit 4.6.1 also ships 4.6.0.0), so it does not identify the package version.

Implementation details

  • Extend the five current hooks to NUnit 5 and report the informational (package) version when the framework defines one; NUnit 3 keeps reporting AssemblyVersion.
  • Instrument dependency skips, including fixtures without individual child results. Preserve their skip reason and suite linkage, and traverse the selected WorkItems so filtered runs omit excluded cases.
  • Keep dependency participants running when ITR suggests skipping them; independent siblings remain skippable. The dependency graph is only inspected for tests ITR would skip, and each sibling group is indexed once with a weak cache.
  • In dependency chains, quarantine and Attempt to Fix hide only failures from NUnit. Other outcomes stay visible, so a passing quarantined prerequisite is reported to NUnit as passed and its dependents run. A hidden failure marks its prerequisite fixture or parameterized suite as Ignored, so its dependents stay blocked as they would by the real failure.
  • Clear captured intermediate errors when the final native Repeat/Retry result passes, is skipped or is inconclusive.
  • Extend the NUnit and retry matrices, excluding NUnit 5 from .NET 6/7, and regenerate instrumentation metadata. Reuse Samples.NUnitTests with NUNIT_5_0 feature fixtures; existing scenarios exclude them with a shared filter. The NUnit 5 EVP scenarios use the shared EVP test harness, which now accepts per-scenario runner arguments.

Test coverage

  • 106 Test Optimization unit tests pass, including dependency, quarantine/Attempt to Fix, hidden-failure and Retry cases.
  • 120 NUnit integration cases pass on .NET 8 for NUnit 3.6.1, 3.10.1, 3.14.0, 4.6.1 and 5.0.0: APM, both EVP transports, dependencies (including quarantine and Attempt to Fix in dependency chains), filtering, ITR, EFD, quarantine, disabled tests, Attempt to Fix, retries and Exception Replay.
  • Red checks against the previous builds: a quarantined or Attempt to Fix passing prerequisite skipped its dependent, a hidden failure after a warning let the dependent fixture run, and NUnit 4.6.1 reported 4.6.0.0.
  • Datadog.Trace builds for netstandard2.0, net461 and netcoreapp3.1, and the shared sample with its NUnit 5 fixtures builds for net48; Windows execution awaits CI.

Other details

  • Runner cancellation is an external NUnit 5 compatibility issue: the engines bundled with adapters 4.5.0 and 6.3.1 invoke StopRun(bool), while NUnit 5 exposes StopRun(). This was reproduced without tracer instrumentation and is not worked around here.
  • With parallel workers, NUnit 5 queues fixtures and evaluates DependsOnFixture before the prerequisite fixture completes, so dependent fixtures are skipped whatever the prerequisite outcome. This is NUnit behavior and is not worked around here; fixture dependency scenarios run with NUnit.NumberOfTestWorkers=0.

@tonyredondo
tonyredondo requested review from a team as code owners October 14, 2026 16:06
@tonyredondo
tonyredondo requested review from LobeTia and removed request for a team October 14, 2026 16:06
@chatgpt-codex-connector

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Oct 14, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review Status Commit Review trigger
📝 Code Review ✅ Completed 2026-10-15T12:51:32.182545Z d125d3d Draft marked ready
🔒 Security Review ✅ Completed 2026-10-15T12:47:53.301198Z d125d3d Draft marked ready
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

@datadog-datadog-prod-us1-2 datadog-datadog-prod-us1-2 Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Bits Code Review: FAIL

Dependency-skipped fixtures report every discovered descendant, including tests excluded by execution filters, producing inflated test totals and skip counts for filtered NUnit 5 runs.

Open Bits AI session

🤖 Bits Code Review · Commit d61edb7

Comment thread tracer/build/PackageVersionsGeneratorDefinitions.json Outdated
Comment thread tracer/build/PackageVersionsGeneratorDefinitions.json Outdated
@tonyredondo
tonyredondo marked this pull request as draft October 14, 2026 16:55
@pr-commenter

pr-commenter Bot commented Oct 14, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Benchmarks

Benchmark execution time: 2026-10-15 12:10:05

Comparing candidate commit d125d3d in PR branch feat/nunit-5 with baseline commit 2cc8452 in branch master.

📊 Benchmarking dashboard

Found 0 performance improvements and 12 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 60 metrics, 0 unstable metrics, 74 known flaky benchmarks, 52 flaky benchmarks without significant changes.

Explanation

This is an A/B test comparing a candidate commit's performance against that of a baseline commit. Performance changes are noted in the tables below as:

  • 🟩 = significantly better candidate vs. baseline
  • 🟥 = significantly worse candidate vs. baseline

We compute a confidence interval (CI) over the relative difference of means between metrics from the candidate and baseline commits, considering the baseline as the reference.

If the CI is entirely outside the configured SIGNIFICANT_IMPACT_THRESHOLD (or the deprecated UNCONFIDENCE_THRESHOLD), the change is considered significant.

Feel free to reach out to #apm-benchmarking-platform on Slack if you have any questions.

More details about the CI and significant changes

You can imagine this CI as a range of values that is likely to contain the true difference of means between the candidate and baseline commits.

CIs of the difference of means are often centered around 0%, because often changes are not that big:

---------------------------------(------|---^--------)-------------------------------->
                              -0.6%    0%  0.3%     +1.2%
                                 |          |        |
         lower bound of the CI --'          |        |
sample mean (center of the CI) -------------'        |
         upper bound of the CI ----------------------'

As described above, a change is considered significant if the CI is entirely outside the configured SIGNIFICANT_IMPACT_THRESHOLD (or the deprecated UNCONFIDENCE_THRESHOLD).

For instance, for an execution time metric, this confidence interval indicates a significantly worse performance:

----------------------------------------|---------|---(---------^---------)---------->
                                       0%        1%  1.3%      2.2%      3.1%
                                                  |   |         |         |
       significant impact threshold --------------'   |         |         |
                      lower bound of CI --------------'         |         |
       sample mean (center of the CI) --------------------------'         |
                      upper bound of CI ----------------------------------'

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.DbCommandBenchmark.ExecuteNonQuery net472

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+95 bytes; +96 bytes] or [+10.133%; +10.144%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-23946.998op/s; -21195.725op/s] or [-6.745%; -5.970%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.DbCommandBenchmark.ExecuteNonQuery net6.0

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+95 bytes; +96 bytes] or [+9.750%; +9.761%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-40599.599op/s; -28967.147op/s] or [-7.703%; -5.496%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.DbCommandBenchmark.ExecuteNonQuery netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+95 bytes; +96 bytes] or [+9.830%; +9.841%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-32028.494op/s; -23961.952op/s] or [-7.917%; -5.923%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.HttpClientBenchmark.SendAsync net472

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+272 bytes; +273 bytes] or [+9.374%; +9.385%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-10216.290op/s; -10009.477op/s] or [-11.663%; -11.427%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.HttpClientBenchmark.SendAsync net6.0

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+199 bytes; +200 bytes] or [+9.426%; +9.438%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.HttpClientBenchmark.SendAsync netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+199 bytes; +200 bytes] or [+7.569%; +7.581%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-13422.893op/s; -11738.873op/s] or [-10.652%; -9.315%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.NLogBenchmark.EnrichedLog net472

  • 🟥 throughput [-8171.641op/s; -7489.407op/s] or [-6.260%; -5.737%]

Known flaky benchmarks

These benchmarks are marked as flaky and will not trigger a failure. Modify FLAKY_BENCHMARKS_REGEX to control which benchmarks are marked as flaky.

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.ActivityBenchmark.StartStopWithChild net472

  • 🟥 throughput [-9128.312op/s; -8621.387op/s] or [-10.823%; -10.222%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.ActivityBenchmark.StartStopWithChild net6.0

  • 🟥 throughput [-9316.591op/s; -6913.198op/s] or [-7.831%; -5.811%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.ActivityBenchmark.StartStopWithChild netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟥 throughput [-14133.567op/s; -12601.113op/s] or [-14.371%; -12.813%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.AgentWriterBenchmark.WriteAndFlushEnrichedTraces net472

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+1.541KB; +1.541KB] or [+46.817%; +46.831%]
  • 🟥 execution_time [+307.379ms; +311.194ms] or [+152.532%; +154.426%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-57.019op/s; -52.090op/s] or [-10.259%; -9.372%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.AgentWriterBenchmark.WriteAndFlushEnrichedTraces net6.0

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+1.013KB; +1.013KB] or [+37.563%; +37.575%]
  • 🟥 execution_time [+375.696ms; +381.207ms] or [+296.823%; +301.177%]
  • 🟩 throughput [+68.910op/s; +74.023op/s] or [+9.086%; +9.760%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.AgentWriterBenchmark.WriteAndFlushEnrichedTraces netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+1.090KB; +1.090KB] or [+40.417%; +40.429%]
  • 🟥 execution_time [+396.864ms; +401.137ms] or [+351.209%; +354.991%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecBodyBenchmark.AllCycleMoreComplexBody net472

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+4.758KB; +4.758KB] or [+100.159%; +100.174%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-63469.707op/s; -63046.022op/s] or [-49.383%; -49.053%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecBodyBenchmark.AllCycleMoreComplexBody net6.0

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+3.880KB; +3.880KB] or [+82.058%; +82.072%]
  • 🟩 execution_time [-15.576ms; -11.408ms] or [-7.274%; -5.328%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-61426.621op/s; -58665.063op/s] or [-44.838%; -42.822%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecBodyBenchmark.AllCycleMoreComplexBody netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+4.608KB; +4.608KB] or [+99.641%; +99.654%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-48574.443op/s; -46333.236op/s] or [-43.917%; -41.891%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecBodyBenchmark.AllCycleSimpleBody net472

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+1.380KB; +1.380KB] or [+111.648%; +111.662%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-377323.736op/s; -373210.204op/s] or [-38.527%; -38.107%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecBodyBenchmark.AllCycleSimpleBody net6.0

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+543 bytes; +544 bytes] or [+44.437%; +44.446%]
  • 🟩 execution_time [-25.832ms; -20.903ms] or [-11.520%; -9.322%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-129380.916op/s; -104891.117op/s] or [-13.822%; -11.206%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecBodyBenchmark.AllCycleSimpleBody netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+1.344KB; +1.344KB] or [+111.253%; +111.267%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-185545.547op/s; -169022.822op/s] or [-26.659%; -24.285%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecBodyBenchmark.ObjectExtractorMoreComplexBody net472

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+3.378KB; +3.378KB] or [+89.003%; +89.017%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-77569.250op/s; -76766.099op/s] or [-52.203%; -51.663%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecBodyBenchmark.ObjectExtractorMoreComplexBody net6.0

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+3.336KB; +3.336KB] or [+88.150%; +88.161%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-75247.349op/s; -72362.632op/s] or [-47.879%; -46.043%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecBodyBenchmark.ObjectExtractorMoreComplexBody netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+3.264KB; +3.264KB] or [+88.493%; +88.506%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-56387.061op/s; -53772.395op/s] or [-44.920%; -42.837%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecBodyBenchmark.ObjectExtractorSimpleBody net472

  • 🟥 throughput [-339691.201op/s; -313907.748op/s] or [-10.334%; -9.550%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecBodyBenchmark.ObjectExtractorSimpleBody netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟩 execution_time [-18.927ms; -14.599ms] or [-8.725%; -6.729%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecEncoderBenchmark.EncodeArgs net472

  • 🟩 allocated_mem [-13.759KB; -13.757KB] or [-42.326%; -42.318%]
  • 🟥 execution_time [+299.439ms; +300.217ms] or [+149.620%; +150.008%]
  • 🟩 throughput [+905.275op/s; +943.817op/s] or [+9.999%; +10.424%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecEncoderBenchmark.EncodeArgs net6.0

  • 🟩 allocated_mem [-13.722KB; -13.718KB] or [-42.341%; -42.329%]
  • 🟥 execution_time [+299.771ms; +302.988ms] or [+151.175%; +152.798%]
  • 🟩 throughput [+2163.337op/s; +2376.500op/s] or [+16.546%; +18.177%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecEncoderBenchmark.EncodeArgs netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟩 allocated_mem [-13.722KB; -13.718KB] or [-42.341%; -42.329%]
  • 🟥 execution_time [+300.750ms; +303.373ms] or [+151.495%; +152.815%]
  • 🟩 throughput [+1830.993op/s; +1962.733op/s] or [+17.677%; +18.949%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecEncoderBenchmark.EncodeLegacyArgs net472

  • 🟥 execution_time [+297.705ms; +298.585ms] or [+146.221%; +146.653%]
  • 🟩 throughput [+566.342op/s; +575.994op/s] or [+15.014%; +15.270%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecEncoderBenchmark.EncodeLegacyArgs net6.0

  • 🟥 execution_time [+298.550ms; +299.796ms] or [+145.950%; +146.559%]
  • 🟩 throughput [+2795.012op/s; +2877.600op/s] or [+40.606%; +41.806%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecEncoderBenchmark.EncodeLegacyArgs netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟥 execution_time [+300.596ms; +301.721ms] or [+150.238%; +150.800%]
  • 🟩 throughput [+1351.252op/s; +1366.669op/s] or [+26.821%; +27.127%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecWafBenchmark.RunWafRealisticBenchmark net472

  • 🟩 execution_time [-140.631µs; -135.485µs] or [-28.873%; -27.817%]
  • 🟩 throughput [+795.233op/s; +831.708op/s] or [+38.731%; +40.508%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecWafBenchmark.RunWafRealisticBenchmark net6.0

  • 🟩 execution_time [-122.477µs; -94.842µs] or [-28.090%; -21.752%]
  • 🟩 throughput [+690.836op/s; +828.972op/s] or [+30.035%; +36.040%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecWafBenchmark.RunWafRealisticBenchmark netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟩 execution_time [-138.295µs; -116.169µs] or [-29.630%; -24.890%]
  • 🟩 throughput [+737.438op/s; +822.681op/s] or [+34.042%; +37.977%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecWafBenchmark.RunWafRealisticBenchmarkWithAttack net472

  • 🟩 execution_time [-124.602µs; -120.046µs] or [-33.642%; -32.412%]
  • 🟩 throughput [+1305.765op/s; +1360.652op/s] or [+48.359%; +50.392%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecWafBenchmark.RunWafRealisticBenchmarkWithAttack net6.0

  • 🟩 execution_time [-88.928µs; -64.823µs] or [-28.390%; -20.695%]
  • 🟩 throughput [+920.132op/s; +1139.146op/s] or [+28.683%; +35.511%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecWafBenchmark.RunWafRealisticBenchmarkWithAttack netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟩 execution_time [-121.663µs; -97.393µs] or [-33.282%; -26.643%]
  • 🟩 throughput [+1040.145op/s; +1230.997op/s] or [+37.327%; +44.176%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.AspNetCoreBenchmark.SendRequest net472

  • 🟥 execution_time [+299.969ms; +300.610ms] or [+149.716%; +150.035%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.AspNetCoreBenchmark.SendRequest net6.0

  • 🟥 execution_time [+418.780ms; +425.686ms] or [+455.022%; +462.525%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.AspNetCoreBenchmark.SendRequest netcoreapp3.1

  • unstable execution_time [+295.899ms; +350.076ms] or [+224.674%; +265.809%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.CIVisibilityProtocolWriterBenchmark.WriteAndFlushEnrichedTraces net472

  • unstable execution_time [+252.282ms; +306.610ms] or [+115.997%; +140.976%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-565.506op/s; -505.437op/s] or [-51.240%; -45.798%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.CIVisibilityProtocolWriterBenchmark.WriteAndFlushEnrichedTraces net6.0

  • unstable execution_time [+208.894ms; +342.133ms] or [+89.022%; +145.803%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-675.452op/s; -591.874op/s] or [-45.053%; -39.478%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.CIVisibilityProtocolWriterBenchmark.WriteAndFlushEnrichedTraces netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟥 execution_time [+337.953ms; +351.859ms] or [+202.135%; +210.452%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-409.584op/s; -373.802op/s] or [-28.519%; -26.027%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.CharSliceBenchmark.OriginalCharSlice net6.0

  • 🟩 execution_time [-195.250µs; -182.259µs] or [-9.891%; -9.233%]
  • 🟩 throughput [+51.682op/s; +55.606op/s] or [+10.202%; +10.977%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.ElasticsearchBenchmark.CallElasticsearch net472

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+96 bytes; +97 bytes] or [+12.092%; +12.103%]
  • 🟥 execution_time [+299.769ms; +302.306ms] or [+150.958%; +152.235%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-23167.165op/s; -21213.533op/s] or [-7.455%; -6.826%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.ElasticsearchBenchmark.CallElasticsearch net6.0

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+95 bytes; +96 bytes] or [+12.114%; +12.124%]
  • 🟥 execution_time [+301.473ms; +305.657ms] or [+151.069%; +153.165%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.ElasticsearchBenchmark.CallElasticsearch netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+95 bytes; +96 bytes] or [+12.114%; +12.124%]
  • 🟥 execution_time [+302.465ms; +305.619ms] or [+151.946%; +153.530%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.ElasticsearchBenchmark.CallElasticsearchAsync net472

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+95 bytes; +96 bytes] or [+11.165%; +11.177%]
  • 🟥 execution_time [+301.401ms; +302.923ms] or [+151.354%; +152.118%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.ElasticsearchBenchmark.CallElasticsearchAsync net6.0

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+95 bytes; +96 bytes] or [+12.493%; +12.506%]
  • 🟥 execution_time [+296.328ms; +299.108ms] or [+146.521%; +147.896%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-45407.918op/s; -40662.129op/s] or [-7.316%; -6.551%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.ElasticsearchBenchmark.CallElasticsearchAsync netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+95 bytes; +96 bytes] or [+11.422%; +11.434%]
  • 🟥 execution_time [+303.496ms; +308.158ms] or [+153.825%; +156.188%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-36522.710op/s; -27743.523op/s] or [-7.887%; -5.991%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.GraphQLBenchmark.ExecuteAsync net472

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+96 bytes; +97 bytes] or [+11.197%; +11.208%]
  • 🟥 execution_time [+302.771ms; +304.119ms] or [+151.964%; +152.640%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-38147.548op/s; -36176.815op/s] or [-9.896%; -9.385%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.GraphQLBenchmark.ExecuteAsync net6.0

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+95 bytes; +96 bytes] or [+10.618%; +10.631%]
  • 🟥 execution_time [+300.584ms; +302.595ms] or [+149.813%; +150.816%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.GraphQLBenchmark.ExecuteAsync netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+95 bytes; +96 bytes] or [+10.618%; +10.631%]
  • 🟥 execution_time [+298.795ms; +302.086ms] or [+148.648%; +150.285%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-34087.024op/s; -27785.131op/s] or [-8.068%; -6.577%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.ILoggerBenchmark.EnrichedLog net472

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+96 bytes; +97 bytes] or [+6.002%; +6.011%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-14293.532op/s; -13136.484op/s] or [-5.748%; -5.283%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.ILoggerBenchmark.EnrichedLog net6.0

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+95 bytes; +96 bytes] or [+5.627%; +5.636%]
  • 🟩 execution_time [-16.055ms; -12.371ms] or [-7.466%; -5.753%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.ILoggerBenchmark.EnrichedLog netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+95 bytes; +96 bytes] or [+5.605%; +5.617%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Iast.StringAspectsBenchmark.StringConcatAspectBenchmark net472

  • unstable execution_time [-4.290µs; +37.933µs] or [-1.060%; +9.370%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Iast.StringAspectsBenchmark.StringConcatAspectBenchmark net6.0

  • 🟩 allocated_mem [-18.634KB; -18.613KB] or [-6.797%; -6.790%]
  • unstable execution_time [-46.612µs; +10.682µs] or [-9.213%; +2.111%]
  • unstable throughput [-30.872op/s; +174.232op/s] or [-1.541%; +8.694%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Iast.StringAspectsBenchmark.StringConcatAspectBenchmark netcoreapp3.1

  • unstable execution_time [-91.067µs; -31.262µs] or [-15.781%; -5.418%]
  • 🟩 throughput [+122.196op/s; +290.516op/s] or [+6.981%; +16.598%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Iast.StringAspectsBenchmark.StringConcatBenchmark net6.0

  • 🟥 execution_time [+3.412µs; +6.923µs] or [+8.064%; +16.364%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-3503.552op/s; -1820.801op/s] or [-14.749%; -7.665%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Iast.StringAspectsBenchmark.StringConcatBenchmark netcoreapp3.1

  • unstable execution_time [-16.959µs; -10.303µs] or [-26.311%; -15.985%]
  • 🟩 throughput [+2733.462op/s; +4148.197op/s] or [+16.771%; +25.451%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Log4netBenchmark.EnrichedLog net472

  • 🟥 execution_time [+302.547ms; +304.154ms] or [+152.924%; +153.736%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Log4netBenchmark.EnrichedLog net6.0

  • 🟥 execution_time [+304.382ms; +307.452ms] or [+154.930%; +156.492%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Log4netBenchmark.EnrichedLog netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟥 execution_time [+297.306ms; +301.048ms] or [+148.839%; +150.712%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.RedisBenchmark.SendReceive net472

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+95 bytes; +96 bytes] or [+9.197%; +9.208%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-42622.356op/s; -41099.370op/s] or [-11.799%; -11.377%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.RedisBenchmark.SendReceive net6.0

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+95 bytes; +96 bytes] or [+9.226%; +9.238%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.RedisBenchmark.SendReceive netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+95 bytes; +96 bytes] or [+9.226%; +9.238%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-32109.564op/s; -23522.545op/s] or [-7.599%; -5.567%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SerilogBenchmark.EnrichedLog net472

  • 🟥 execution_time [+299.089ms; +301.310ms] or [+149.069%; +150.176%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SerilogBenchmark.EnrichedLog net6.0

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+96 bytes; +96 bytes] or [+6.000%; +6.010%]
  • 🟥 execution_time [+301.243ms; +302.646ms] or [+151.270%; +151.974%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SerilogBenchmark.EnrichedLog netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+95 bytes; +96 bytes] or [+5.819%; +5.828%]
  • 🟥 execution_time [+302.044ms; +304.313ms] or [+153.177%; +154.328%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SingleSpanAspNetCoreBenchmark.SingleSpanAspNetCore net472

  • 🟥 execution_time [+300.431ms; +301.106ms] or [+149.857%; +150.193%]
  • 🟩 throughput [+65390592.212op/s; +65631476.538op/s] or [+47.621%; +47.797%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SingleSpanAspNetCoreBenchmark.SingleSpanAspNetCore net6.0

  • unstable execution_time [+336.345ms; +400.400ms] or [+418.305%; +497.969%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SingleSpanAspNetCoreBenchmark.SingleSpanAspNetCore netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟥 execution_time [+299.741ms; +300.733ms] or [+149.504%; +149.999%]
  • 🟩 throughput [+18908191.823op/s; +19863929.976op/s] or [+8.375%; +8.798%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SpanBenchmark.StartFinishScope net472

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+31 bytes; +32 bytes] or [+5.244%; +5.256%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-95675.516op/s; -93731.588op/s] or [-10.677%; -10.461%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SpanBenchmark.StartFinishScope net6.0

  • 🟩 throughput [+62616.234op/s; +75331.150op/s] or [+5.846%; +7.033%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SpanBenchmark.StartFinishSpan net472

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+31 bytes; +32 bytes] or [+6.037%; +6.047%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-168450.402op/s; -159407.704op/s] or [-15.420%; -14.592%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SpanBenchmark.StartFinishSpan net6.0

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+31 bytes; +32 bytes] or [+6.057%; +6.065%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SpanBenchmark.StartFinishSpan netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+31 bytes; +32 bytes] or [+6.059%; +6.069%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SpanBenchmark.StartFinishTwoScopes net472

  • 🟥 throughput [-39083.133op/s; -35554.389op/s] or [-8.708%; -7.922%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.TraceAnnotationsBenchmark.RunOnMethodBegin net472

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+95 bytes; +96 bytes] or [+15.733%; +15.745%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-61722.400op/s; -58366.715op/s] or [-9.033%; -8.542%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.TraceAnnotationsBenchmark.RunOnMethodBegin net6.0

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+95 bytes; +96 bytes] or [+14.810%; +14.823%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.TraceAnnotationsBenchmark.RunOnMethodBegin netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+95 bytes; +96 bytes] or [+14.810%; +14.821%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-57569.551op/s; -42317.992op/s] or [-8.038%; -5.909%]

Known flaky benchmarks without significant changes:

  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.ActivityBenchmark.StartSpan net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.ActivityBenchmark.StartSpan net6.0
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.ActivityBenchmark.StartSpan netcoreapp3.1
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.ActivityBenchmark.StartSpan_AddEvent_Sampled net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.ActivityBenchmark.StartSpan_AddEvent_Sampled net6.0
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.ActivityBenchmark.StartSpan_AddEvent_Sampled netcoreapp3.1
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.ActivityBenchmark.StartSpan_GetContext_Sampled net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.ActivityBenchmark.StartSpan_GetContext_Sampled net6.0
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.ActivityBenchmark.StartSpan_GetContext_Sampled netcoreapp3.1
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.ActivityBenchmark.StartSpan_SetAttributes_Sampled net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.ActivityBenchmark.StartSpan_SetAttributes_Sampled net6.0
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.ActivityBenchmark.StartSpan_SetAttributes_Sampled netcoreapp3.1
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.ActivityBenchmark.StartSpan_SetStatus_Sampled net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.ActivityBenchmark.StartSpan_SetStatus_Sampled net6.0
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.ActivityBenchmark.StartSpan_SetStatus_Sampled netcoreapp3.1
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.ActivityBenchmark.StartSpan_UpdateName_Sampled net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.ActivityBenchmark.StartSpan_UpdateName_Sampled net6.0
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.ActivityBenchmark.StartSpan_UpdateName_Sampled netcoreapp3.1
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.TelemetrySpanBenchmark.StartSpan net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.TelemetrySpanBenchmark.StartSpan net6.0
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.TelemetrySpanBenchmark.StartSpan netcoreapp3.1
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.TelemetrySpanBenchmark.StartSpan_AddEvent_Sampled net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.TelemetrySpanBenchmark.StartSpan_AddEvent_Sampled net6.0
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.TelemetrySpanBenchmark.StartSpan_AddEvent_Sampled netcoreapp3.1
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.TelemetrySpanBenchmark.StartSpan_GetContext_Sampled net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.TelemetrySpanBenchmark.StartSpan_GetContext_Sampled net6.0
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.TelemetrySpanBenchmark.StartSpan_GetContext_Sampled netcoreapp3.1
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.TelemetrySpanBenchmark.StartSpan_RecordException_Sampled net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.TelemetrySpanBenchmark.StartSpan_RecordException_Sampled net6.0
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.TelemetrySpanBenchmark.StartSpan_RecordException_Sampled netcoreapp3.1
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.TelemetrySpanBenchmark.StartSpan_SetAttributes_Sampled net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.TelemetrySpanBenchmark.StartSpan_SetAttributes_Sampled net6.0
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.TelemetrySpanBenchmark.StartSpan_SetAttributes_Sampled netcoreapp3.1
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.TelemetrySpanBenchmark.StartSpan_SetStatus_Sampled net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.TelemetrySpanBenchmark.StartSpan_SetStatus_Sampled net6.0
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.TelemetrySpanBenchmark.StartSpan_SetStatus_Sampled netcoreapp3.1
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.TelemetrySpanBenchmark.StartSpan_UpdateName_Sampled net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.TelemetrySpanBenchmark.StartSpan_UpdateName_Sampled net6.0
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.TelemetrySpanBenchmark.StartSpan_UpdateName_Sampled netcoreapp3.1
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecBodyBenchmark.ObjectExtractorSimpleBody net6.0
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.CharSliceBenchmark.OptimizedCharSlice net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.CharSliceBenchmark.OptimizedCharSlice net6.0
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.CharSliceBenchmark.OptimizedCharSlice netcoreapp3.1
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.CharSliceBenchmark.OptimizedCharSliceWithPool net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.CharSliceBenchmark.OptimizedCharSliceWithPool net6.0
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.CharSliceBenchmark.OptimizedCharSliceWithPool netcoreapp3.1
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.CharSliceBenchmark.OriginalCharSlice net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.CharSliceBenchmark.OriginalCharSlice netcoreapp3.1
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Iast.StringAspectsBenchmark.StringConcatBenchmark net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SpanBenchmark.StartFinishScope netcoreapp3.1
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SpanBenchmark.StartFinishTwoScopes net6.0
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SpanBenchmark.StartFinishTwoScopes netcoreapp3.1

@dd-trace-dotnet-ci-bot

dd-trace-dotnet-ci-bot Bot commented Oct 14, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Execution-Time Benchmarks Report ⏱️

Execution-time results for samples comparing This PR (9407) and master.

✅ No regressions detected

📄 View the full report (charts + all metrics) →

…ement

- Hide only failures of NUnit 5 prerequisites for quarantine and Attempt to Fix; hidden failures still block the dependents of their prerequisite suites.
- Inspect the dependency graph only for tests ITR would skip.
- Clear stale native Retry errors when the final result is skipped or inconclusive.
- Report leaf dependency skips without scanning their siblings.
…heap

- Only marked prerequisite suites reach the ConditionalWeakTable lock on completion.
- Filter dependency skips by their result state before creating result proxies.
- Add per-scenario runner arguments to TestScenario.
- Drop the no-op NUnit.PreFilter=false and run fixture dependency scenarios without NUnit workers.
- Replace the CanHideResult predicate, which recorded hidden failures, with TryHideResult, which also hides the result.
- Skip error cleanup for spans without errors and clarify the dependency-skip hook comment.
@tonyredondo
tonyredondo marked this pull request as ready for review October 15, 2026 12:43

@datadog-datadog-prod-us1-2 datadog-datadog-prod-us1-2 Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Bits Code Review: PASS

More details

Static review found no concrete regression in dependency scheduling, skipped-test reporting, or final-result error cleanup. Runtime validation was blocked by the unavailable .NET 11 preview SDK.

Was this helpful? React 👍 or 👎

Open Bits AI session

🤖 Bits Code Review · Commit d125d3d

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: d125d3d294

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

This branch has not been deployed

No deployments
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants