[NDMII-3310] add support for HA integrations #33828

jedupau · 2025-02-07T16:10:32Z

What does this PR do?

This PR adds a method IsHASupported to the Check interface which returns false by default.
Overriding it to true means that the integration does support HA.
If a user configures an integration with ha_enabled: true on a non supported integration the Configure will fail and the check not schedule

Describe how you validated your changes

Run a supported and an unsupported integration with and without ha_enabled: true.

unsupported integration without configuration : nothing change
unsupported integration with configuration : configuration fails, visible in agent status
supported integration without configuration : nothing change
supported integration with configuration : HA works as expected

Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs

Additional Notes

agent-platform-auto-pr · 2025-02-10T15:17:21Z

Static quality checks ✅

Please find below the results from static quality gates

Info

Result	Quality gate	On disk size	On disk size limit	On wire size	On wire size limit
✅	static_quality_gate_agent_deb_amd64	849.54MiB	858.45MiB	204.66MiB	214.3MiB
✅	static_quality_gate_docker_agent_amd64	933.94MiB	942.69MiB	311.9MiB	321.56MiB

agent-platform-auto-pr · 2025-02-10T16:01:25Z

Test changes on VM

Use this command from test-infra-definitions to manually test this PR changes on a VM:

inv aws.create-vm --pipeline-id=55784795 --os-family=ubuntu

Note: This applies to commit c1f429b

agent-platform-auto-pr · 2025-02-10T16:04:44Z

Uncompressed package size comparison

Comparison with ancestor 16bfa4fdf67f4c67a45582c254d1bef347dd1757

Diff per package

package	diff	status	size	ancestor	threshold
datadog-agent-aarch64-rpm	5.30MB	❌	876.59MB	871.29MB	0.50MB
datadog-agent-arm64-deb	5.27MB	❌	866.84MB	861.57MB	0.50MB
datadog-agent-x86_64-rpm	4.81MB	❌	888.25MB	883.43MB	0.50MB
datadog-agent-x86_64-suse	4.81MB	❌	888.25MB	883.43MB	0.50MB
datadog-heroku-agent-amd64-deb	4.80MB	❌	450.87MB	446.07MB	0.50MB
datadog-agent-amd64-deb	4.79MB	❌	878.48MB	873.69MB	0.50MB
datadog-iot-agent-amd64-deb	0.02MB	⚠️	86.51MB	86.49MB	0.50MB
datadog-iot-agent-arm64-deb	0.02MB	⚠️	82.79MB	82.77MB	0.50MB
datadog-iot-agent-x86_64-rpm	0.02MB	⚠️	86.58MB	86.56MB	0.50MB
datadog-iot-agent-x86_64-suse	0.02MB	⚠️	86.58MB	86.56MB	0.50MB
datadog-iot-agent-aarch64-rpm	0.02MB	⚠️	82.86MB	82.84MB	0.50MB
datadog-dogstatsd-x86_64-rpm	-0.00MB	✅	59.18MB	59.18MB	0.50MB
datadog-dogstatsd-x86_64-suse	-0.00MB	✅	59.18MB	59.18MB	0.50MB
datadog-dogstatsd-amd64-deb	-0.00MB	✅	59.10MB	59.10MB	0.50MB
datadog-dogstatsd-arm64-deb	-0.00MB	✅	56.57MB	56.57MB	0.50MB

Decision

❌ Failed

Currently this PR is blocked, you can reach out to #agent-delivery-help to get support/ask for an exception.

cit-pr-commenter · 2025-02-10T16:30:05Z

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Metrics dashboard
Target profiles
Run ID: c9b5a73b-afd9-4f64-b62b-f232d3964666

Baseline: 16bfa4f
Comparison: dd699ed
Diff

Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf	experiment	goal	Δ mean %	Δ mean % CI	trials	links
➖	quality_gate_logs	% cpu utilization	+1.62	[-1.46, +4.70]	1	Logs
➖	file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load	egress throughput	+0.63	[+0.16, +1.09]	1	Logs
➖	tcp_syslog_to_blackhole	ingress throughput	+0.20	[+0.13, +0.27]	1	Logs
➖	file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency	egress throughput	+0.10	[-0.68, +0.87]	1	Logs
➖	uds_dogstatsd_to_api	ingress throughput	+0.02	[-0.26, +0.30]	1	Logs
➖	file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency	egress throughput	+0.01	[-0.68, +0.69]	1	Logs
➖	tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude	ingress throughput	+0.00	[-0.01, +0.02]	1	Logs
➖	file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency	egress throughput	-0.01	[-0.89, +0.87]	1	Logs
➖	file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2	egress throughput	-0.01	[-0.85, +0.83]	1	Logs
➖	file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency	egress throughput	-0.01	[-0.65, +0.62]	1	Logs
➖	file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1	egress throughput	-0.02	[-0.92, +0.87]	1	Logs
➖	quality_gate_idle	memory utilization	-0.08	[-0.11, -0.05]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖	file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency	egress throughput	-0.10	[-0.89, +0.69]	1	Logs
➖	file_tree	memory utilization	-0.21	[-0.27, -0.14]	1	Logs
➖	quality_gate_idle_all_features	memory utilization	-0.22	[-0.28, -0.16]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖	uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu	% cpu utilization	-1.37	[-2.22, -0.52]	1	Logs

Bounds Checks: ✅ Passed

perf	experiment	bounds_check_name	replicates_passed	links
✅	file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency	lost_bytes	10/10
✅	file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency	memory_usage	10/10
✅	file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1	lost_bytes	10/10
✅	file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1	memory_usage	10/10
✅	file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2	lost_bytes	10/10
✅	file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2	memory_usage	10/10
✅	file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency	memory_usage	10/10
✅	file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load	memory_usage	10/10
✅	file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency	lost_bytes	10/10
✅	file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency	memory_usage	10/10
✅	file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency	lost_bytes	10/10
✅	file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency	memory_usage	10/10
✅	file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency	lost_bytes	10/10
✅	file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency	memory_usage	10/10
✅	quality_gate_idle	intake_connections	10/10	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_idle	memory_usage	10/10	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_idle_all_features	intake_connections	10/10	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_idle_all_features	memory_usage	10/10	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_logs	intake_connections	10/10
✅	quality_gate_logs	lost_bytes	10/10
✅	quality_gate_logs	memory_usage	10/10

Explanation

Confidence level: 90.00%
Effect size tolerance: |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%

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

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".

CI Pass/Fail Decision

✅ Passed. All Quality Gates passed.

quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
quality_gate_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
quality_gate_idle, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
quality_gate_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
quality_gate_logs, bounds check lost_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
quality_gate_logs, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.

pkg/jmxfetch/jmxfetch.go

pkg/collector/corechecks/checkbase.go

Co-authored-by: Alexandre Yang <[email protected]>

pkg/collector/python/check.go

GustavoCaso

LGTM 👏

vickenty · 2025-02-14T13:10:36Z

pkg/collector/check/check.go

@@ -56,6 +56,8 @@ type Check interface {
 	GetDiagnoses() ([]diagnosis.Diagnosis, error)
 	// IsHAEnabled returns if High Availability is enabled for this check
 	IsHAEnabled() bool
+	// IsHASupported returns if the check is compatible with High Availability
+	IsHASupported() bool


CheckWrapper#IsHASupported is the only place where this interface method is called. Since we don't call anywhere useful, this can be safely removed.

vickenty · 2025-02-14T13:11:40Z

pkg/collector/corechecks/checkbase.go

+
+// IsHASupported returns if the check is compatible with High Availability
+func (c *CheckBase) IsHASupported() bool {
+	return false


How checks would opt-in? Since go doesn't support virtual methods, CommonConfigure will always call this exact implementation, and will always get false.

vickenty · 2025-02-14T13:13:16Z

pkg/collector/corechecks/checkbase_test.go

@@ -68,3 +72,19 @@ func TestCommonConfigureCustomID(t *testing.T) {
 	assert.Equal(t, string(mycheck.ID()), "test:foobar:a934df33209f45f4")
 	mockSender.AssertExpectations(t)
 }
+
+func TestCommonConfigureNotHASupported(t *testing.T) {


Could you please also add a test that a check can actually opt-in?

vickenty · 2025-02-14T13:17:06Z

pkg/collector/corechecks/network-devices/cisco-sdwan/sdwan.go

@@ -290,6 +290,11 @@ func (c *CiscoSdwanCheck) Interval() time.Duration {
 	return c.interval
 }

+// IsHASupported returns true if the check supports HA
+func (c *CiscoSdwanCheck) IsHASupported() bool {
+	return true


Could not configure check cisco_sdwan: High Availability is enabled for check cisco_sdwan:2a628ec07bc21842 but this integration does not support it

vickenty · 2025-02-14T13:24:15Z

pkg/jmxfetch/jmxfetch.go

@@ -478,6 +480,9 @@ func (j *JMXFetch) ConfigureFromInitConfig(initConfig integration.Data) error {
 			j.JavaCustomJarPaths = initConf.CustomJarPaths
 		}
 	}
+	if initConf.HAEnabled {
+		return fmt.Errorf("High Availability is not supported in JMX integrations")


This doesn't seem to propagate to agent status the same way that other integrations report this.

it seems that no configuration errors in jmx integrations appears in the status 🤔
https://github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/blob/jed/flag-integrations-ha-compatible/pkg/jmxfetch/scheduler.go#L59-L62

jedupau force-pushed the jed/flag-integrations-ha-compatible branch 2 times, most recently from 6768c06 to 609adf7 Compare February 10, 2025 14:14

jedupau force-pushed the jed/flag-integrations-ha-compatible branch from fb8850d to 85ba6a6 Compare February 11, 2025 09:32

flag integrations as ha compatible

dd699ed

jedupau force-pushed the jed/flag-integrations-ha-compatible branch from 85ba6a6 to dd699ed Compare February 11, 2025 09:33

jedupau changed the title ~~[NDMII-3310] Jed/flag integrations ha compatible~~ [NDMII-3310] add support for HA integrations Feb 11, 2025

jedupau mentioned this pull request Feb 11, 2025

[NDMII-3310] Provide API for any integration to become HA Integration #33578

Closed

jedupau force-pushed the jed/flag-integrations-ha-compatible branch from 79c04d9 to 3742efa Compare February 11, 2025 16:06

jedupau marked this pull request as ready for review February 11, 2025 16:11

jedupau requested review from a team as code owners February 11, 2025 16:11

jedupau requested review from akarpz and FlorianVeaux and removed request for a team February 11, 2025 16:11

jedupau force-pushed the jed/flag-integrations-ha-compatible branch from 3742efa to c159e6a Compare February 11, 2025 16:39

add check for jmx fetch

8141d48

jedupau force-pushed the jed/flag-integrations-ha-compatible branch from c159e6a to 8141d48 Compare February 11, 2025 17:15

AlexandreYang self-requested a review February 11, 2025 18:39

AlexandreYang reviewed Feb 11, 2025

View reviewed changes

pkg/jmxfetch/jmxfetch.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

AlexandreYang reviewed Feb 11, 2025

View reviewed changes

pkg/jmxfetch/jmxfetch.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

AlexandreYang approved these changes Feb 11, 2025

View reviewed changes

github-actions bot added the long review PR is complex, plan time to review it label Feb 11, 2025

AlexandreYang self-requested a review February 11, 2025 21:40

AlexandreYang reviewed Feb 11, 2025

View reviewed changes

pkg/collector/corechecks/checkbase.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

jedupau and others added 3 commits February 12, 2025 10:21

Update pkg/jmxfetch/jmxfetch.go

c7d1142

Co-authored-by: Alexandre Yang <[email protected]>

Update pkg/jmxfetch/jmxfetch.go

0b3caea

Co-authored-by: Alexandre Yang <[email protected]>

add unit test

88ff94a

AlexandreYang approved these changes Feb 12, 2025

View reviewed changes

ichinaski approved these changes Feb 12, 2025

View reviewed changes

fix test

0bde365

AlexandreYang requested review from vickenty and GustavoCaso February 12, 2025 17:58

akarpz approved these changes Feb 12, 2025

View reviewed changes

GustavoCaso reviewed Feb 13, 2025

View reviewed changes

pkg/collector/python/check.go Show resolved Hide resolved

add comment

c1f429b

GustavoCaso approved these changes Feb 13, 2025

View reviewed changes

kkhor-datadog approved these changes Feb 13, 2025

View reviewed changes

vickenty reviewed Feb 14, 2025

View reviewed changes

jedupau added 2 commits February 17, 2025 17:55

wip

0ea0a86

TEST python checks

9bc8a11

jedupau force-pushed the jed/flag-integrations-ha-compatible branch from 4dd480e to 9bc8a11 Compare February 17, 2025 16:58

jedupau requested review from a team as code owners February 17, 2025 16:58

jedupau marked this pull request as draft February 17, 2025 17:00

jedupau closed this Feb 24, 2025

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

[NDMII-3310] add support for HA integrations #33828

[NDMII-3310] add support for HA integrations #33828

jedupau commented Feb 7, 2025 •

edited

Loading

agent-platform-auto-pr bot commented Feb 10, 2025 •

edited

Loading

agent-platform-auto-pr bot commented Feb 10, 2025 •

edited

Loading

agent-platform-auto-pr bot commented Feb 10, 2025 •

edited

Loading

cit-pr-commenter bot commented Feb 10, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Fine details of change detection per experiment

Bounds Checks: ✅ Passed

Explanation

GustavoCaso left a comment

vickenty Feb 14, 2025

vickenty Feb 14, 2025

vickenty Feb 14, 2025

vickenty Feb 14, 2025

vickenty Feb 14, 2025

jedupau Feb 17, 2025

[NDMII-3310] add support for HA integrations #33828

[NDMII-3310] add support for HA integrations #33828

Conversation

jedupau commented Feb 7, 2025 • edited Loading

What does this PR do?

Describe how you validated your changes

Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs

Additional Notes

agent-platform-auto-pr bot commented Feb 10, 2025 • edited Loading

Static quality checks ✅

Info

agent-platform-auto-pr bot commented Feb 10, 2025 • edited Loading

Test changes on VM

agent-platform-auto-pr bot commented Feb 10, 2025 • edited Loading

Uncompressed package size comparison

Decision

cit-pr-commenter bot commented Feb 10, 2025 • edited Loading

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected

Fine details of change detection per experiment

Bounds Checks: ✅ Passed

Explanation

CI Pass/Fail Decision

GustavoCaso left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

vickenty Feb 14, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

vickenty Feb 14, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

vickenty Feb 14, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

vickenty Feb 14, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

vickenty Feb 14, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jedupau Feb 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jedupau commented Feb 7, 2025 •

edited

Loading

agent-platform-auto-pr bot commented Feb 10, 2025 •

edited

Loading

agent-platform-auto-pr bot commented Feb 10, 2025 •

edited

Loading

agent-platform-auto-pr bot commented Feb 10, 2025 •

edited

Loading

cit-pr-commenter bot commented Feb 10, 2025 •

edited

Loading