Update AggregateEntry to Split OK/Error Latencies

[mhlidd]

What Does This Do

This PR updates AggregateEntry to properly be able to capture separate counts for OK and Error latencies for the purposes of OTLP trace metrics.

Motivation

Additional Notes

Contributor Checklist

• Format the title according to the contribution guidelines
• Assign the type: and (comp: or inst:) labels in addition to any other useful labels
• Avoid using close, fix, or any linking keywords when referencing an issue
  Use solves instead, and assign the PR milestone to the issue
• Update the CODEOWNERS file on source file addition, migration, or deletion
• Update public documentation with any new configuration flags or behaviors
• Add your completed PR to the merge queue by commenting /merge. You can also:
  • Customize the commit message associated with the merge with /merge --commit-message "..."
  • Remove your PR from the merge queue with /merge -c
  • Skip all merge queue checks with /merge -f --reason "reason"; please use this judiciously, as some checks do not run at the PR-level (note: the PR still needs to be mergeable, this will only skip the pre-merge build)
  • Get more information in this doc

Jira ticket: [PROJ-IDENT]

[dd-octo-sts]

🟢 Java Benchmark SLOs — All performance SLOs passed

Suite	Status
Startup	🟢 pass

SLO thresholds are defined here based on automatically generated metrics. A warning is raised when results are within 5% of the threshold.

PR vs. master results

Scenario	Candidate	master	Δ (95% CI of mean)
startup:insecure-bank:iast:Agent	13.98 s	13.97 s	[-0.7%; +0.8%] (no difference)
startup:insecure-bank:tracing:Agent	12.92 s	12.98 s	[-1.1%; +0.2%] (no difference)
startup:petclinic:appsec:Agent	16.95 s	16.78 s	[+0.2%; +1.9%] (maybe worse)
startup:petclinic:iast:Agent	16.87 s	16.92 s	[-0.9%; +0.3%] (no difference)
startup:petclinic:profiling:Agent	16.86 s	17.08 s	[-2.4%; -0.2%] (maybe better)
startup:petclinic:sca:Agent	16.86 s	16.78 s	[-0.4%; +1.4%] (no difference)
startup:petclinic:tracing:Agent	16.06 s	16.12 s	[-1.4%; +0.8%] (no difference)

Commit: 2d8a515b · CI Pipeline · Benchmarking Platform UI

---

Load and DaCapo benchmarks can be triggered manually in the GitLab pipeline. Results will appear in the Benchmarking Platform UI after completion.

[mhlidd]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 3be9e267af

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Codex has been enabled to automatically 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 👍.

When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".

[dougqh]

I'm 75% through reworking this code. I'm trying to decide how best to slot this in.
The last major structural change is #11387. It adds per component / tag cardinality limiters, and it looks that is going to interact with this.

[mhlidd]

@dougqh Happy to get this PR to a mergable state and wait to merge after your changes go in. I took a quick look and it doesn't look like your PR introduces anything that would logically prevent my changes from working. Would you be able to confirm that? 🙇‍♂️

[dougqh]

@dougqh Happy to get this PR to a mergable state and wait to merge after your changes go in. I took a quick look and it doesn't look like your PR introduces anything that would logically prevent my changes from working. Would you be able to confirm that? 🙇‍♂️

@mhlidd Yeah, after thinking it through, I'd like to land #11387 first -- precisely because it gives us a safety mechanism that is important there.

Because origin is externally controlled, I want to be careful how we handle it. Right now, the DDCache can constantly churn, so an external actor can still cause constant UTF8BytesString allocation.

#11387 introduces a cardinality limiter that allows us to clamp allocation, so blunt that attack vector.

[mhlidd]

@mcculls After internal discussion, origin will not be introduced w/ OTLP trace metrics. When native CSS decides to include origin tagging, OTLP can capture it as well then. Thus, there will be no cardinality increases introduced in this PR.