Conversation
aabd543 to
427e20d
Compare
Benchmarks [ profiler ]Benchmark execution time: 2026-02-06 09:17:17 Comparing candidate commit b20a43f in PR branch Found 0 performance improvements and 2 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 27 metrics, 7 unstable metrics. scenario:walk_stack/50
scenario:walk_stack/99
|
Benchmarks [ tracer ]Benchmark execution time: 2026-02-06 09:58:44 Comparing candidate commit b20a43f in PR branch Found 0 performance improvements and 5 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 184 metrics, 5 unstable metrics. scenario:MessagePackSerializationBench/benchMessagePackSerialization-opcache
scenario:SamplingRuleMatchingBench/benchRegexMatching1
scenario:SamplingRuleMatchingBench/benchRegexMatching2
scenario:SamplingRuleMatchingBench/benchRegexMatching3
scenario:SamplingRuleMatchingBench/benchRegexMatching4
|
|
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #3609 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 62.21% 62.20% -0.02%
==========================================
Files 141 141
Lines 13387 13387
Branches 1753 1753
==========================================
- Hits 8329 8327 -2
- Misses 4260 4263 +3
+ Partials 798 797 -1 see 1 file with indirect coverage changes Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
morrisonlevi
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Approved, but I have a question!
Description
This PR implements this RFC for Profiling by adding a process tags field to the Uploader from the tracer.
Note that if process_tags are deactivated, the value passed to the profiler will be an empty string.
Here are an example in datadog:

(see entrypoint.basedir/entrypoint.name fields).
No tests were added at it does not seem to be possible right now (because of the interaction tracer <> profiler)
Reviewer checklist