Skip to content

feat(profiling): process_tags on uploader#3609

Open
dubloom wants to merge 5 commits intomasterfrom
dubloom/process-tags-profiling
Open

feat(profiling): process_tags on uploader#3609
dubloom wants to merge 5 commits intomasterfrom
dubloom/process-tags-profiling

Conversation

@dubloom
Copy link
Contributor

@dubloom dubloom commented Jan 30, 2026

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:
image
(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

  • Test coverage seems ok.
  • Appropriate labels assigned.

@dubloom dubloom force-pushed the dubloom/process-tags-profiling branch from aabd543 to 427e20d Compare January 30, 2026 14:01
@pr-commenter
Copy link

pr-commenter bot commented Jan 30, 2026

Benchmarks [ profiler ]

Benchmark execution time: 2026-02-06 09:17:17

Comparing candidate commit b20a43f in PR branch dubloom/process-tags-profiling with baseline commit f1d36ca in branch master.

Found 0 performance improvements and 2 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 27 metrics, 7 unstable metrics.

scenario:walk_stack/50

  • 🟥 wall_time [+630.177ns; +639.778ns] or [+4.081%; +4.143%]

scenario:walk_stack/99

  • 🟥 wall_time [+796.403ns; +800.331ns] or [+5.212%; +5.238%]

@pr-commenter
Copy link

pr-commenter bot commented Jan 30, 2026

Benchmarks [ tracer ]

Benchmark execution time: 2026-02-06 09:58:44

Comparing candidate commit b20a43f in PR branch dubloom/process-tags-profiling with baseline commit f1d36ca in branch master.

Found 0 performance improvements and 5 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 184 metrics, 5 unstable metrics.

scenario:MessagePackSerializationBench/benchMessagePackSerialization-opcache

  • 🟥 execution_time [+3.286µs; +4.594µs] or [+3.195%; +4.466%]

scenario:SamplingRuleMatchingBench/benchRegexMatching1

  • 🟥 execution_time [+85.050ns; +134.950ns] or [+7.405%; +11.749%]

scenario:SamplingRuleMatchingBench/benchRegexMatching2

  • 🟥 execution_time [+117.828ns; +159.372ns] or [+10.279%; +13.903%]

scenario:SamplingRuleMatchingBench/benchRegexMatching3

  • 🟥 execution_time [+86.538ns; +131.662ns] or [+7.472%; +11.369%]

scenario:SamplingRuleMatchingBench/benchRegexMatching4

  • 🟥 execution_time [+95.075ns; +151.525ns] or [+8.270%; +13.180%]

@datadog-datadog-prod-us1
Copy link

datadog-datadog-prod-us1 bot commented Jan 30, 2026

⚠️ Tests

Fix all issues with Cursor

⚠️ Warnings

🧪 1024 Tests failed

    testSearchPhpBinaries from integration.DDTrace\Tests\Integration\PHPInstallerTest (Fix with Cursor)

    testSimplePushAndProcess from laravel-58-test.DDTrace\Tests\Integrations\Laravel\V5_8\QueueTest (Fix with Cursor)

testSimplePushAndProcess from laravel-8x-test.DDTrace\Tests\Integrations\Laravel\V8_x\QueueTest (Datadog) (Fix with Cursor)
DDTrace\Tests\Integrations\Laravel\V8_x\QueueTest::testSimplePushAndProcess
Test code or tested code printed unexpected output: spanLinksTraceId: 6985b0e00000000061629f50a6374bbc
tid: 6985b0e000000000
hexProcessTraceId: 61629f50a6374bbc
hexProcessSpanId: 4b5b39c1d7f92e72
processTraceId: 7017346338131495868
processSpanId: 5429997280440168050

phpvfscomposer://tests/vendor/phpunit/phpunit/phpunit:106
View all

ℹ️ Info

❄️ No new flaky tests detected

This comment will be updated automatically if new data arrives.
🔗 Commit SHA: b20a43f | Docs | Datadog PR Page | Was this helpful? Give us feedback!

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Jan 30, 2026

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 62.20%. Comparing base (f1d36ca) to head (b20a43f).

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@            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.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update f1d36ca...b20a43f. Read the comment docs.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

@dubloom dubloom marked this pull request as ready for review January 30, 2026 17:55
@dubloom dubloom requested review from a team as code owners January 30, 2026 17:56
@morrisonlevi morrisonlevi changed the title Adds process tags to profiler uploader feat(profiling): process_tags on uploader Feb 6, 2026
@morrisonlevi morrisonlevi added the profiling Relates to the Continuous Profiler label Feb 6, 2026
Copy link
Collaborator

@morrisonlevi morrisonlevi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Approved, but I have a question!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

profiling Relates to the Continuous Profiler

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants