Skip to content

Conversation

@anais-raison
Copy link
Contributor

@anais-raison anais-raison commented Feb 11, 2026

Motivation

Having support for both v1 and v2 payload.
Libdatadog now send v2 payload : DataDog/libdatadog#1498

Changes

Fixed the crashtracking tests to handle both v1 (payload:[]) and v2 (payload:{logs:[]}) payload format so we can update to v2 without breaking the system tests.

Reviewer checklist

  • Anything but tests/ or manifests/ is modified ? I have the approval from R&P team

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

CODEOWNERS have been resolved as:

tests/parametric/test_crashtracking.py                                  @DataDog/system-tests-core @DataDog/apm-sdk-capabilities

@datadog-datadog-prod-us1
Copy link

datadog-datadog-prod-us1 bot commented Feb 11, 2026

⚠️ Tests

Fix all issues with Cursor

⚠️ Warnings

❄️ 1 New flaky test detected

tests.parametric.test_dynamic_configuration.TestDynamicConfigSamplingRules.test_remote_sampling_rules_retention[library_env0, parametric-python] from system_tests_suite (Datadog) (Fix with Cursor)
assert 1.0 == 0.1 ± 1.0e-07
  comparison failed
  Obtained: 1.0
  Expected: 0.1 ± 1.0e-07

self = <tests.parametric.test_dynamic_configuration.TestDynamicConfigSamplingRules object at 0x7fa7ea96da90>
test_agent = <utils.docker_fixtures._test_agent.TestAgentAPI object at 0x7fa7b5ec7530>
test_library = <utils.docker_fixtures._test_clients._test_client_parametric.ParametricTestClientApi object at 0x7fa7b5efe8a0>

    @parametrize("library_env", [{**DEFAULT_ENVVARS}])
...

ℹ️ Info

🧪 All tests passed

This comment will be updated automatically if new data arrives.
🔗 Commit SHA: 2aac755 | Docs | Datadog PR Page | Was this helpful? Give us feedback!

@anais-raison anais-raison marked this pull request as ready for review February 11, 2026 13:58
@anais-raison anais-raison requested review from a team as code owners February 11, 2026 13:58
@anais-raison anais-raison requested review from mhlidd and removed request for a team February 11, 2026 13:58
Copy link

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 14ffb6f6a9

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".

@anais-raison anais-raison marked this pull request as draft February 11, 2026 14:08
@anais-raison anais-raison marked this pull request as ready for review February 11, 2026 15:57
Copy link
Collaborator

@nccatoni nccatoni left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM (for @DataDog/system-tests-core) but you should get a review from someone familiar with the feature

Copy link

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: bc01770c5e

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".

Copy link
Contributor

@mhlidd mhlidd left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

QQ, otherwise LGTM

Copy link
Member

@genesor genesor left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

My main question is about keeping only one test, is mandatory ?

Having a test on v1 for a given set of tracers versions and one v2 would be easier to understand write and to understand.

Having two tests would also allow us to know when the switch from v1 → v2 happened in every tracer impacted.

EDIT: discussed live:

  • it's fine to keep a single test.
  • The assert_crash_report should be split into two func (v1 and v2) and called when needed instead of having v1 and v2 strings to improve test readability.
  • NIT: Another test asserting all tracer are using v2 could be added, tracer not migrated would be marked as missing_feature until they migrate

Copy link
Member

@genesor genesor left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@anais-raison
Copy link
Contributor Author

/merge

@gh-worker-devflow-routing-ef8351
Copy link

gh-worker-devflow-routing-ef8351 bot commented Feb 11, 2026

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.

2026-02-11 17:14:28 UTC ℹ️ Start processing command /merge


2026-02-11 17:14:35 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: waiting for PR to be ready

This pull request is not mergeable according to GitHub. Common reasons include pending required checks, missing approvals, or merge conflicts — but it could also be blocked by other repository rules or settings.
It will be added to the queue as soon as checks pass and/or get approvals. View in MergeQueue UI.
Note: if you pushed new commits since the last approval, you may need additional approval.
You can remove it from the waiting list with /remove command.


2026-02-11 19:04:57 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: merge request added to the queue

The expected merge time in main is approximately 9m (p90).


2026-02-11 19:12:49 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: This merge request was merged

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.

4 participants