Add tests for remote disablement of APM#2039
Conversation
Co-authored-by: Kyle Verhoog <kyle@verhoog.ca>
cbeauchesne
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
New test is failing.
cbeauchesne
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
AGTM
Though, I did not reviwed the test logic, it may be a good idea to get a review from someone familiar with the tested feature.
|
@emmettbutler for next PR, could you check CI before merging ? this PR has been merged while the CI was failing on the new test, and in consequence, CI of dd-trace-java, dd-trace-rb and dd-trace-php was broken (tks @robertomonteromiguel for #2060). For more context, we did not added strict rules on this repo, to keep our agility (flakiness, and also failures related to something else happens quite often), so as long as a single approval at any moment exists, we can merge. But it requires an extra attention when the CI is red. |
…#8080) This pull request makes `Tracer.enabled` configurable via remote. Semantically this configuration is a one-way switch: it can be remotely set to False, but once it's False it cannot be remotely set to True. When False, it can be set to True via code or environment variable. There isn't much risk in this change because it's a no-op until the UI starts sending the relevant remote configuration flag. The remote config backend change supporting this feature is dd-go PR 118200. The system-tests change validating this new functionality is DataDog/system-tests#2039. ## Checklist - [x] Change(s) are motivated and described in the PR description. - [x] Testing strategy is described if automated tests are not included in the PR. - [x] Risk is outlined (performance impact, potential for breakage, maintainability, etc). - [x] Change is maintainable (easy to change, telemetry, documentation). - [x] [Library release note guidelines](https://ddtrace.readthedocs.io/en/stable/releasenotes.html) are followed. If no release note is required, add label `changelog/no-changelog`. - [x] Documentation is included (in-code, generated user docs, [public corp docs](https://github.com/DataDog/documentation/)). - [x] Backport labels are set (if [applicable](https://ddtrace.readthedocs.io/en/latest/contributing.html#backporting)) - [x] Check against client capabilities documentation - [x] system-tests added here https://github.com/DataDog/system-tests/blob/37f0b61616884cbb8dd553415409c1ad0152ad98/tests/parametric/test_dynamic_configuration.py ## Reviewer Checklist - [x] Title is accurate. - [x] No unnecessary changes are introduced. - [x] Description motivates each change. - [x] Avoids breaking [API](https://ddtrace.readthedocs.io/en/stable/versioning.html#interfaces) changes unless absolutely necessary. - [x] Testing strategy adequately addresses listed risk(s). - [x] Change is maintainable (easy to change, telemetry, documentation). - [x] Release note makes sense to a user of the library. - [x] Reviewer has explicitly acknowledged and discussed the performance implications of this PR as reported in the benchmarks PR comment. - [x] Backport labels are set in a manner that is consistent with the [release branch maintenance policy](https://ddtrace.readthedocs.io/en/latest/contributing.html#backporting) - [x] If this PR touches code that signs or publishes builds or packages, or handles credentials of any kind, I've requested a review from `@DataDog/security-design-and-guidance`. - [x] This PR doesn't touch any of that. APMON-578 --------- Co-authored-by: Tahir H. Butt <tahir.butt@datadoghq.com>
Motivation & Changes
In support of the Python implementation of runtime tracing un-instrumentation in DataDog/dd-trace-py#8080, I've implemented a simple black box test of the functionality described in the relevant product briefs.
Workflow
codeownersfile quickly.🚀 Once your PR is reviewed, you can merge it!
🛟 #apm-shared-testing 🛟
Reviewer checklist
run-parametric-scenario,run-profiling-scenario...) are presentsbuild-XXX-imagelabel is present