chore(py3.15): official support, SSI, and profiling reno

[vlad-scherbich]

prev: #19273 | next: (stack tip)

Summary

Stack tip: declare official Python 3.15 support in packaging, lib-injection SSI allow-list (formerly #19274), and profiling Reno note (formerly #19275). Merge last after profiling functional work lands.

Layer	This PR
Compiled	—
Armed	SSI wheel list
Observable	requires-python, reno, customer-facing 3.15 support

Test plan

• CI green on this branch
• Reno fragment validates

Tracker

• Closes [3.15] Add Programming Language :: Python :: 3.15 classifier to pyproject.toml #17815
• Contributes to [Tracker] Python 3.15 integration parity #17809
• Contributes to [3.15] Lib-injection max-Python bump in lib-injection/sources/requirements.csv (analogue of #12283) #17813 (SSI)

[datadog-official]

 

✨ Unblock PR with BitsAI

⚠️ Warnings

🚦 14 Pipeline jobs failed

System Tests | tracer-release / End-to-end #1 / openai-py@2.0.0 1 — ❌ 2 tests failed · 🔧 Needs a code fix, caused by this PR

View in Datadog · View in GitHub Actions

2 failed tests. AssertionError: expected a before-model ai_guard span with target 'prompt'.

Showing tests most relevant to this failure.

❌ tests.integration_frameworks.llm.openai.test_openai_ai_guard.TestOpenAiAiGuard.test_before_model_validation[openai-py@2.0.0] from system_tests_suite  

AssertionError: expected a before-model ai_guard span with target 'prompt'
assert []

self = <tests.integration_frameworks.llm.openai.test_openai_ai_guard.TestOpenAiAiGuard object at 0x7f5ca8f6f590>
test_agent = <utils.docker_fixtures._test_agent.TestAgentAPI object at 0x7f5c99883410>
test_client = <utils.docker_fixtures._test_clients._test_client_framework_integrations.FrameworkTestClientApi object at 0x7f5c99926ff0>

    def test_before_model_validation(self, test_agent: TestAgentAPI, test_client: FrameworkTestClientApi):
        """The prompt is evaluated by AI Guard before the OpenAI model is called."""
        with test_agent.vcr_context():
...

↳ and 1 more — View all

System Tests | tracer-release / End-to-end #2 / flask-poc 2 — ❌ 1 test failed · 🔧 Needs a code fix, caused by this PR

View in Datadog · View in GitHub Actions

1 failed test. AssertionError: 'ai_guard.http.client_ip' not found in span metadata during anomaly detection validation in tests/ai_guard/test_ai_guard_sdk.py:63.

Showing tests most relevant to this failure.

❌ tests.ai_guard.test_ai_guard_sdk.Test_AnomalyDetectionTags.test_anomaly_detection_tags[flask-poc] from system_tests_suite  

AssertionError: 'ai_guard.http.client_ip' not found in '{'ai_guard.target': 'prompt', 'ai_guard.usr.session_id': 's12345', '_dd.svc_src': 'm', 'ai_guard.action': 'ALLOW', 'env': 'system-tests', 'ai_guard.reason': 'No rule match.', 'ai_guard.http.useragent': 'system_tests rid/WLWZYQZPITFDKSXZLTHUPMEDQVUUHCDBXWRJ', 'version': '1.0.0', 'ai_guard.usr.id': 'u12345', 'key2': 'val2', 'ai_guard.redacted': 'false', 'key1': 'val1'}'
assert 'ai_guard.http.client_ip' in {'_dd.svc_src': 'm', 'ai_guard.action': 'ALLOW', 'ai_guard.http.useragent': 'system_tests rid/WLWZYQZPITFDKSXZLTHUPMEDQVUUHCDBXWRJ', 'ai_guard.reason': 'No rule match.', ...}

self = <tests.ai_guard.test_ai_guard_sdk.Test_AnomalyDetectionTags object at 0x7f9692fd5820>

    def test_anomaly_detection_tags(self):
        """Test that AI Guard spans carry anomaly detection attributes copied from the root span.
    
        Verifies that http.client_ip, network.client.ip, http.useragent, usr.id and usr.session.id
        are all present on the AI Guard span with the ai_guard. prefix, and that their values
...

DataDog/apm-reliability/dd-trace-py | build linux serverless: [amd64, cp315-cp315, v113741238-d2b8243-manylinux2014_x86_64, 1] — 🔧 Needs a code fix, caused by this PR

View in Datadog · View in GitLab

View all 14 failed jobs.

📋 Copy prompt for your agent

CI on my pull request is failing. Help me find and fix the root cause of each failing job below — they were flagged as caused by changes in this PR, so focus on the diff. For each job, explain the failure and propose a fix.

Branch: vlad/315-official-support

System Tests | tracer-release / End-to-end #1 / openai-py@2.0.0 1
Commit: 77818bccf209b6ded03537731835f69538234c05
Error (code / test):
2 failed tests. AssertionError: expected a before-model ai_guard span with target 'prompt'.
CI job: https://github.com/DataDog/dd-trace-py/actions/runs/32522616464/job/96900283871

System Tests | tracer-release / End-to-end #2 / flask-poc 2
Commit: 77818bccf209b6ded03537731835f69538234c05
Error (code / test):
1 failed test. AssertionError: 'ai_guard.http.client_ip' not found in span metadata during anomaly detection validation in tests/ai_guard/test_ai_guard_sdk.py:63.
CI job: https://github.com/DataDog/dd-trace-py/actions/runs/32522616464/job/96900283551

Plus 1 more failing job not shown here.

ℹ️ Info

No other issues found (see more)

❄️ No new flaky tests detected

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎

_{This comment will be updated automatically if new data arrives.
🔗 Commit SHA: d3cb48c | Docs | View more details | Give us feedback!}

[cit-pr-commenter-54b7da]

Codeowners resolved as

Resolved from the full PR diff against vlad/315-profiling-dev-tooling using the target branch CODEOWNERS file.
CODEOWNERS team requests not listed below are not required by the current file set.

.riot/requirements/128e1e1.txt                                          @DataDog/apm-python
.riot/requirements/1857594.txt                                          @DataDog/apm-python
lib-injection/dl_wheels.py                                              @DataDog/apm-core-python
lib-injection/sources/requirements.csv                                  @DataDog/apm-core-python
lib-injection/sources/sitecustomize.py                                  @DataDog/apm-core-python
pyproject.toml                                                          @DataDog/python-guild
releasenotes/notes/profiling-python315-support-5910a6a4e623716b.yaml    @DataDog/apm-python
requirements.csv                                                        @DataDog/apm-core-python
scripts/integration_registry/registry.yaml                              @DataDog/apm-idm-python
scripts/py315-stack/PROFILING_STACK.md                                  @DataDog/python-guild
scripts/py315-stack/pr-numbers.env                                      @DataDog/python-guild
supported_versions.json                                                 @DataDog/apm-core-python @DataDog/apm-idm-python

[cit-pr-commenter-54b7da]

Circular import analysis

⚠️ Existing circular imports

There are 3 circular imports that already exist on the base branch and have not been changed by this PR.

ddtrace.llmobs -> ddtrace.llmobs._evaluators -> ddtrace.llmobs._evaluators.format -> ddtrace.llmobs._experiment -> ddtrace.llmobs
ddtrace.errortracking._handled_exceptions.bytecode_injector -> ddtrace.errortracking._handled_exceptions.callbacks -> ddtrace.errortracking._handled_exceptions.collector -> ddtrace.errortracking._handled_exceptions.bytecode_reporting -> ddtrace.errortracking._handled_exceptions.bytecode_injector
ddtrace.appsec._asm_request_context -> ddtrace.appsec._iast._iast_request_context_base -> ddtrace.appsec._iast._iast_env -> ddtrace.appsec._iast.reporter -> ddtrace.appsec._exploit_prevention.stack_traces -> ddtrace.appsec._asm_request_context

[cit-pr-commenter-54b7da]

Dependency direction analysis

⚠️ Existing dependency direction violations

There are 250 dependency direction violations that already exist on the base branch and have not been changed by this PR.

Show existing violations (showing 5 of 250 highest severity)

ddtrace.internal.tracemethods -×-> ddtrace.trace  (internal-core -> product:tracing, score=135)
ddtrace.appsec._contrib.flask -×-> ddtrace.trace  (product:appsec -> product:tracing, score=133)
ddtrace.llmobs._integrations.openai_agents -×-> ddtrace.trace  (product:llmobs -> product:tracing, score=133)
ddtrace.internal.ci_visibility.filters -×-> ddtrace.trace  (product:ci_visibility -> product:tracing, score=133)
ddtrace.internal.openfeature._span_enrichment -×-> ddtrace.trace  (product:openfeature -> product:tracing, score=133)

To see all violations, download the layers-base.json and layers-pr.json artifacts from this CI job and run:

uv run --script scripts/import-analysis/layers.py compare layers-base.json layers-pr.json

[cit-pr-commenter-54b7da]

Dependency direction analysis

⚠️ Existing dependency direction violations

There are 250 dependency direction violations that already exist on the base branch and have not been changed by this PR.

Show existing violations (showing 5 of 250 highest severity)

ddtrace.internal.tracemethods -×-> ddtrace.trace  (internal-core -> product:tracing, score=135)
ddtrace.profiling.collector.stack -×-> ddtrace.trace  (product:profiling -> product:tracing, score=133)
ddtrace.llmobs._integrations.claude_agent_sdk -×-> ddtrace.trace  (product:llmobs -> product:tracing, score=133)
ddtrace.internal.ci_visibility.recorder -×-> ddtrace.trace  (product:ci_visibility -> product:tracing, score=133)
ddtrace.internal.opentelemetry.trace -×-> ddtrace.trace  (product:opentelemetry -> product:tracing, score=133)

To see all violations, download the layers-base.json and layers-pr.json artifacts from this CI job and run:

uv run --script scripts/import-analysis/layers.py compare layers-base.json layers-pr.json

[pr-commenter]

Benchmarks

Benchmark execution time: 2026-08-21 20:40:07

Comparing candidate commit d3cb48c in PR branch vlad/315-official-support with baseline commit 69baea3 in branch main.

📊 Benchmarking dashboard

Found 0 performance improvements and 10 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 612 metrics, 10 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 ----------------------------------'

scenario:httppropagationextract-empty_headers

• 🟥 execution_time [+109.292ns; +139.147ns] or [+10.623%; +13.525%]

scenario:httppropagationinject-ids_only

• 🟥 execution_time [+1.654µs; +1.814µs] or [+8.560%; +9.387%]

scenario:iastaspects-casefold_noaspect

• 🟥 execution_time [+39.096µs; +48.896µs] or [+15.847%; +19.820%]

scenario:iastaspects-strip_aspect

• 🟥 execution_time [+27.642µs; +34.534µs] or [+9.646%; +12.051%]

scenario:iastaspects-title_aspect

• 🟥 execution_time [+44.527µs; +53.202µs] or [+16.833%; +20.112%]

scenario:iastaspectsospath-ospathbasename_aspect

• 🟥 execution_time [+109.724µs; +119.781µs] or [+27.558%; +30.084%]

scenario:iastaspectssplit-rsplit_aspect

• 🟥 execution_time [+16.258µs; +21.253µs] or [+11.283%; +14.749%]

scenario:span-start

• 🟥 execution_time [+1.372ms; +1.564ms] or [+9.168%; +10.455%]

scenario:telemetryaddmetric-1-count-metric-1-times

• 🟥 execution_time [+419.617ns; +454.337ns] or [+15.999%; +17.323%]

scenario:tracer-small

• 🟥 execution_time [+24.933µs; +29.088µs] or [+7.390%; +8.621%]

Unstable benchmarks

These benchmarks have a confidence interval too wide to call a change; treat them as noise rather than signal.

scenario:coreapiscenario-context_with_data_listeners

• unstable execution_time [-695.973ns; +782.773ns] or [-6.375%; +7.170%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_1_listener

• unstable execution_time [-30.089ns; +35.991ns] or [-4.937%; +5.905%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_50_listeners

• unstable execution_time [-1605.718ns; +1687.147ns] or [-9.480%; +9.960%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_exception_listeners

• unstable execution_time [-1213.244ns; +1323.368ns] or [-9.135%; +9.964%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_listeners

• unstable execution_time [-321.433ns; +326.843ns] or [-8.794%; +8.942%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_no_args_listeners

• unstable execution_time [-256.996ns; +244.988ns] or [-8.866%; +8.452%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_with_results_1_listener

• unstable execution_time [-77.335ns; +67.982ns] or [-6.803%; +5.980%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_with_results_50_listeners

• unstable execution_time [-3823.080ns; +4114.293ns] or [-9.506%; +10.230%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_with_results_listeners

• unstable execution_time [-804.353ns; +746.544ns] or [-9.955%; +9.239%]

scenario:packagesupdateimporteddependencies-import_many_stdlib_cached

• unstable execution_time [-61512.100ns; +59772.931ns] or [-9.579%; +9.308%]