Skip to content

ci: update one-pipeline version - #6414

Open
gh-worker-campaigns-3e9aa4[bot] wants to merge 6 commits into
masterfrom
campaigner/update-one-pipeline
Open

gh-worker-campaigns-3e9aa4[bot] wants to merge 6 commits into
masterfrom
campaigner/update-one-pipeline

Conversation

@gh-worker-campaigns-3e9aa4

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This automated pull request updates one-pipeline to the latest version.

📝 Full release notes

@datadog-prod-us1-6

datadog-prod-us1-6 Bot commented Oct 2, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Tests

✅ All CI checks and tests passed.

🎉 All green!

🧪 All tests passed
❄️ No new flaky tests detected

🎯 Code Coverage (details)
• Patch Coverage: 100.00%
• Overall Coverage: 90.87% (-0.01%)

This comment will be updated automatically if new data arrives.
🔗 Commit SHA: f38d3d5 | Docs | View more details | Give us feedback!

@pr-commenter

pr-commenter Bot commented Oct 2, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Benchmarks

Benchmark execution time: 2026-10-09 18:04:08

Comparing candidate commit f38d3d5 in PR branch campaigner/update-one-pipeline with baseline commit e8989f4 in branch master.

📊 Benchmarking dashboard

Found 0 performance improvements and 0 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 52 metrics, 0 unstable metrics.

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 ----------------------------------'

@dd-octo-sts

dd-octo-sts Bot commented Oct 6, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Typing analysis

This PR does not change typing compared to the base branch.

@erikayasuda
erikayasuda enabled auto-merge October 9, 2026 17:37
@erikayasuda
erikayasuda disabled auto-merge October 9, 2026 18:24
@erikayasuda
erikayasuda enabled auto-merge October 9, 2026 18:24

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