8000 [AGENTCFG-276] Configure Agent Install Info via API by rahulkaukuntla · Pull Request #37948 · DataDog/datadog-agent · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Skip to content

[AGENTCFG-276] Configure Agent Install Info via API #37948

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

[AGENTCFG-276] Configure Agent Install Info via API #37948

wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

rahulkaukuntla
Copy link
Contributor

What does this PR do?

We are exposing an API in the agent codebase to explicitly set the install_method value.

Here is the provided context: on ECS, the agent is deployed as part of an ECS task, and for years customers have been copy/pasting the example task definition (in JSON). As a result, all agents deployed this way report DOCKER as the install_method, because that’s the default in the container image.

However, the agent can detect when it’s running on ECS, and updates the install method at runtime using logic in pkg/config/env. Having an explicit API to override or set this value would help ensure more accurate reporting and give users more control.

Motivation

Describe how you validated your changes

Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs

Additional Notes

@rahulkaukuntla rahulkaukuntla added changelog/no-changelog qa/done QA done before merge and regressions are covered by tests labels Jun 13, 2025
@cit-pr-commenter cit-pr-commenter
Copy link
cit-pr-commenter bot commented Jun 13, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Metrics dashboard
Target profiles
Run ID: 3ae81afe-17dd-42ae-aa07-b2f2f8fb02d7

Baseline: 26adf93
Comparison: e91d326
Diff

Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf experiment goal Δ mean % Δ mean % CI trials links
➖ uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu % cpu utilization +1.44 [+0.57, +2.32] 1 Logs
➖ docker_containers_memory memory utilization +0.99 [+0.92, +1.06] 1 Logs
➖ tcp_syslog_to_blackhole ingress throughput +0.45 [+0.38, +0.52] 1 Logs
➖ file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency egress throughput +0.04 [-0.59, +0.66] 1 Logs
➖ file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency egress throughput +0.01 [-0.61, +0.64] 1 Logs
➖ tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude ingress throughput -0.00 [-0.03, +0.02] 1 Logs
➖ uds_dogstatsd_to_api ingress throughput -0.01 [-0.27, +0.26] 1 Logs
➖ file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 egress throughput -0.01 [-0.59, +0.57] 1 Logs
➖ file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 egress throughput -0.02 [-0.61, +0.57] 1 Logs
➖ file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency egress throughput -0.03 [-0.63, +0.57] 1 Logs
➖ file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency egress throughput -0.03 [-0.59, +0.53] 1 Logs
➖ file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load egress throughput -0.05 [-0.28, +0.18] 1 Logs
➖ otlp_ingest_logs memory utilization -0.07 [-0.20, +0.05] 1 Logs
➖ uds_dogstatsd_20mb_12k_contexts_20_senders memory utilization -0.09 [-0.13, -0.04] 1 Logs
➖ quality_gate_idle memory utilization -0.10 [-0.15, -0.04] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖ file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency egress throughput -0.12 [-0.68, +0.44] 1 Logs
➖ ddot_logs memory utilization -0.30 [-0.42, -0.18] 1 Logs
➖ otlp_ingest_metrics memory utilization -0.36 [-0.53, -0.19] 1 Logs
➖ ddot_metrics memory utilization -0.49 [-0.61, -0.37] 1 Logs
➖ quality_gate_idle_all_features memory utilization -0.50 [-0.59, -0.41] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖ docker_containers_cpu % cpu utilization -0.63 [-3.60, +2.33] 1 Logs
➖ file_tree memory utilization -0.98 [-1.15, -0.82] 1 Logs
➖ quality_gate_logs % cpu utilization -3.29 [-5.98, -0.60] 1 Logs bounds checks dashboard

Bounds Checks: ✅ Passed

perf experiment bounds_check_name replicates_passed links
✅ docker_containers_cpu simple_check_run 10/10
✅ docker_containers_memory memory_usage 10/10
✅ docker_containers_memory simple_check_run 10/10
✅ file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency lost_bytes 10/10
✅ file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency memory_usage 10/10
✅ file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 lost_bytes 10/10
✅ file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 memory_usage 10/10
✅ file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 lost_bytes 10/10
✅ file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 memory_usage 10/10
✅ file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency memory_usage 10/10
✅ file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load memory_usage 10/10
✅ file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency lost_bytes 10/10
✅ file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency memory_usage 10/10
✅ file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency lost_bytes 10/10
✅ file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency memory_usage 10/10
✅ file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency lost_bytes 10/10
✅ file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency memory_usage 10/10
✅ quality_gate_idle intake_connections 10/10 bounds checks dashboard
✅ quality_gate_idle memory_usage 10/10 bounds checks dashboard
✅ quality_gate_idle_all_features intake_connections 10/10 bounds checks dashboard
✅ quality_gate_idle_all_features memory_usage 10/10 bounds checks dashboard
✅ quality_gate_logs intake_connections 10/10 bounds checks dashboard
✅ quality_gate_logs lost_bytes 10/10 bounds checks dashboard
✅ quality_gate_logs memory_usage 10/10 bounds checks dashboard

Explanation

Confidence level: 90.00%
Effect size tolerance: |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%

Performance changes are noted in the perf column of each table:

  • ✅ = significantly better comparison variant performance
  • ❌ = significantly worse comparison variant performance
  • ➖ = no significant change in performance

A regression test is an A/B test of target performance in a repeatable rig, where "performance" is measured as "comparison variant minus baseline variant" for an optimization goal (e.g., ingress throughput). Due to intrinsic variability in measuring that goal, we can only estimate its mean value for each experiment; we report uncertainty in that value as a 90.00% confidence interval denoted "Δ mean % CI".

For each experiment, we decide whether a change in performance is a "regression" -- a change worth investigating further -- if all of the following criteria are true:

  1. Its estimated |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%, indicating the change is big enough to merit a closer look.

  2. Its 90.00% confidence interval "Δ mean % CI" does not contain zero, indicating that if our statistical model is accurate, there is at least a 90.00% chance there is a difference in performance between baseline and comparison variants.

  3. Its configuration does not mark it "erratic".

CI Pass/Fail Decision

✅ Passed. All Quality Gates passed.

  • quality_gate_idle, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_logs, bounds check lost_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_logs, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
  • quality_gate_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.

@agent-platform-auto-pr
Copy link
Contributor
agent-platform-auto-pr bot commented Jun 13, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Static quality checks

✅ Please find below the results from static quality gates
Comparison made with ancestor 26adf93

Successful checks

Info

Quality gate Delta On disk size (MiB) Delta On wire size (MiB)
✅ agent_deb_amd64 $${+0.01}$$ $${697.02}$$ < $${697.37}$$ $${-0.01}$$ $${176.11}$$ < $${177.03}$$
✅ agent_deb_amd64_fips $${+0.02}$$ $${695.33}$$ < $${695.59}$$ $${+0}$$ $${175.55}$$ < $${176.51}$$
✅ agent_heroku_amd64 $${+0.01}$$ $${358.68}$$ < $${359.67}$$ $${+0.01}$$ $${96.52}$$ < $${97.47}$$
✅ agent_msi $${+0.04}$$ $${958.91}$$ < $${959.86}$$ $${+0.01}$$ $${146.29}$$ < $${147.27}$$
✅ agent_rpm_amd64 $${+0.01}$$ $${697.01}$$ < $${697.36}$$ $${+0.01}$$ $${177.68}$$ < $${178.56}$$
✅ agent_rpm_amd64_fips $${+0.02}$$ $${695.32}$$ < $${695.58}$$ $${+0.03}$$ $${177.57}$$ < $${178.43}$$
✅ agent_rpm_arm64 $${+0.01}$$ $${687.04}$$ < $${687.37}$$ $${+0.02}$$ $${161.1}$$ < $${161.99}$$
✅ agent_rpm_arm64_fips $${+0.01}$$ $${685.45}$$ < $${685.72}$$ $${+0.02}$$ $${160.25}$$ < $${161.11}$$
✅ agent_suse_amd64 $${+0.01}$$ $${697.01}$$ < $${697.36}$$ $${+0.01}$$ $${177.68}$$ < $${178.56}$$
✅ agent_suse_amd64_fips $${+0.02}$$ $${695.32}$$ < $${695.58}$$ $${+0.03}$$ $${177.57}$$ < $${178.43}$$
✅ agent_suse_arm64 $${+0.01}$$ $${687.04}$$ < $${687.37}$$ $${+0.02}$$ $${161.1}$$ < $${161.99}$$
✅ agent_suse_arm64_fips $${+0.01}$$ $${685.45}$$ < $${685.72}$$ $${+0.02}$$ $${160.25}$$ < $${161.11}$$
✅ docker_agent_amd64 $${+0.01}$$ $${780.81}$$ < $${781.16}$$ $${+0.01}$$ $${268.79}$$ < $${269.63}$$
✅ docker_agent_arm64 $${+0.01}$$ $${794.29}$$ < $${794.62}$$ $${-0}$$ $${256.14}$$ < $${257.0}$$
✅ docker_agent_jmx_amd64 $${+0.01}$$ $${972.01}$$ < $${972.35}$$ $${-0.02}$$ $${337.75}$$ < $${338.6}$$
✅ docker_agent_jmx_arm64 $${+0.01}$$ $${974.08}$$ < $${974.41}$$ $${+0.01}$$ $${321.08}$$ < $${321.97}$$
✅ docker_agent_windows1809 $${+0.04}$$ $${1487.06}$$ < $${1488.0}$$ $${-0.06}$$ $${487.98}$$ < $${488.95}$$
✅ docker_agent_windows1809_core $${+0.04}$$ $${6217.01}$$ < $${6218.0}$$ $${0}$$ $${2048.0}$$ < $${2049.0}$$
✅ docker_agent_windows1809_core_jmx $${-22.28}$$ $${6338.58}$$ < $${6361.0}$$ $${0}$$ $${2048.0}$$ < $${2049.0}$$
✅ docker_agent_windows1809_jmx $${+0.04}$$ $${1608.69}$$ < $${1609.5}$$ $${-0.01}$$ $${530.31}$$ < $${531.32}$$
✅ docker_agent_windows2022 $${-0.1}$$ $${1506.26}$$ < $${1507.0}$$ $${-0.06}$$ $${500.73}$$ < $${501.7}$$
✅ docker_agent_windows2022_core $${+0.05}$$ $${6190.26}$$ < $${6311.0}$$ $${0}$$ $${2048.0}$$ < $${2049.0}$$
✅ docker_agent_windows2022_core_jmx $${+0.14}$$ $${6311.99}$$ < $${6313.0}$$ $${0}$$ $${2048.0}$$ < $${2049.0}$$
✅ docker_agent_windows2022_jmx $${+0.1}$$ $${1628.12}$$ < $${1628.16}$$ $${+0.01}$$ $${543.04}$$ < $${543.98}$$
✅ docker_cluster_agent_amd64 $${+0.01}$$ $${212.85}$$ < $${213.79}$$ $${+0}$$ $${72.38}$$ < $${73.33}$$
✅ docker_cluster_agent_arm64 $${+0.06}$$ $${228.75}$$ < $${229.64}$$ $${-0.01}$$ $${68.64}$$ < $${69.6}$$
✅ docker_cws_instrumentation_amd64 $${0}$$ $${7.08}$$ < $${7.12}$$ $${+0}$$ $${2.95}$$ < $${3.29}$$
✅ docker_cws_instrumentation_arm64 $${0}$$ $${6.69}$$ < $${6.92}$$ $${-0}$$ $${2.7}$$ < $${3.07}$$
✅ docker_dogstatsd_amd64 $${+0}$$ $${39.22}$$ < $${39.57}$$ $${-0}$$ $${15.12}$$ < $${15.76}$$
✅ docker_dogstatsd_arm64 $${-0}$$ $${37.88}$$ < $${38.2}$$ $${-0}$$ $${14.54}$$ < $${14.83}$$
✅ dogstatsd_deb_amd64 $${0}$$ $${30.45}$$ < $${31.4}$$ $${+0}$$ $${8.0}$$ < $${8.95}$$
✅ dogstatsd_deb_arm64 $${0}$$ $${29.02}$$ < $${29.97}$$ $${+0}$$ $${6.94}$$ < $${7.89}$$
✅ dogstatsd_rpm_amd64 $${0}$$ $${30.45}$$ < $${31.4}$$ $${-0}$$ $${8.01}$$ < $${8.96}$$
✅ dogstatsd_suse_amd64 $${0}$$ $${30.45}$$ < $${31.4}$$ $${-0}$$ $${8.01}$$ < $${8.96}$$
✅ iot_agent_deb_amd64 $${+0.02}$$ $${50.44}$$ < $${51.38}$$ $${+0.01}$$ $${12.84}$$ < $${13.79}$$
✅ iot_agent_deb_arm64 $${+0.01}$$ $${47.91}$$ < $${48.85}$$ $${+0}$$ $${11.14}$$ < $${12.09}$$
✅ iot_agent_deb_armhf $${+0.01}$$ $${47.48}$$ < $${48.42}$$ $${+0.01}$$ $${11.21}$$ < $${12.16}$$
✅ iot_agent_rpm_amd64 $${+0.02}$$ $${50.44}$$ < $${51.38}$$ $${+0}$$ $${12.86}$$ < $${13.81}$$
✅ iot_agent_rpm_arm64 $${+0.01}$$ $${47.91}$$ < $${48.85}$$ $${+0}$$ $${11.16}$$ < $${12.11}$$
✅ iot_agent_suse_amd64 $${+0.02}$$ $${50.44}$$ < $${51.38}$$ $${+0}$$ $${12.86}$$ < $${13.81}$$

@rahulkaukuntla rahulkaukuntla marked this pull request as ready for review June 16, 2025 20:34
@rahulkaukuntla rahulkaukuntla requested review from a team as code owners June 16, 2025 20:34
@rahulkaukuntla rahulkaukuntla requested review from hush-hush, GustavoCaso and dustmop and removed request for hush-hush June 16, 2025 20:34
GustavoCaso
GustavoCaso reviewed Jun 18, 2025
View reviewed changes
pkg/util/installinfo/install_info.go
Comment on lines +253 to +256
if r.Method != http.MethodPost && r.Method != http.MethodPut {
http.Error(w, "Method not allowed", http.StatusMethodNotAllowed)
return
}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We are already setting the Methods filter in the handler definition https://github.com/DataDog/datadog-agent/pull/37948/files#diff-2d0c2690e3abf0afdb94956a349c583b9e1cf4a348c2a9213982d0ba95d4c490R42

We can probably remove this extra check.

Also, it seems that you also support PUT requests, so we might want to add that in the mux filter Methods("POST", "PUT")

GustavoCaso
GustavoCaso reviewed Jun 18, 2025
View reviewed changes
pkg/util/installinfo/install_info.go
Comment on lines +280 to +283
if r.Method != http.MethodGet {
http.Error(w, "Method not allowed", http.StatusMethodNotAllowed)
return
}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Same comment about not needing this extract check if we are using the mux filters

GustavoCaso
GustavoCaso reviewed Jun 18, 2025
View reviewed changes
pkg/util/installinfo/install_info.go
Comment on lines +301 to +304
if r.Method != http.MethodDelete {
http.Error(w, "Method not allowed", http.StatusMethodNotAllowed)
return
}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Same comment about not needing this extract check if we are using the mux filters

GustavoCaso
GustavoCaso reviewed Jun 18, 2025
View reviewed changes
pkg/util/installinfo/install_info.go
if installInfo, ok := getFromEnvVars(); ok {
return installInfo, nil
}
return getFromPath(GetFilePath(conf))
}

// SetRuntimeInstallInfo sets the install info at runtime, overriding file and env var values
func SetRuntimeInstallInfo(info *InstallInfo) error {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I would make this function private at first. We want to reduce the surface area of the package and ways that people can tweak the installation info. It seems that we want to use the HTTP server for that, in that case I would make this function private and only expose the HTTP handlers

GustavoCaso
GustavoCaso reviewed Jun 18, 2025
View reviewed changes
pkg/util/installinfo/install_info.go
Comment on lines +63 to +70
type SetInstallInfoRequest struct {
Tool string `json:"tool"`
ToolVersion string `json:"tool_version"`
InstallerVersion string `json:"installer_version"`
}

// SetInstallInfoResponse represents the response after setting install info
type SetInstallInfoResponse struct {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Same comment about privacy. The structs seems to be only relevant in the context of this package, so I would make them private at first

GustavoCaso
GustavoCaso reviewed Jun 18, 2025
View reviewed changes
pkg/util/installinfo/install_info_test.go
@@ -322,3 +326,399 @@ func TestScrubFromPath(t *testing.T) {
assert.Equal(t, "2.5.0 password=********", info.ToolVersion)
assert.Equal(t, "3.7.1 password=********", info.InstallerVersion)
}

func TestSetRuntimeInstallInfo(t *testing.T) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We could run the tests on the API component. We are testing the handlers here, but we are not testing that the API routes are available for the API server. Unless you are planning on adding more tests on a following PR I think it would be better to move the test to the API server component which is the one that expose the routes

GustavoCaso
GustavoCaso reviewed Jun 18, 2025
View reviewed changes
comp/api/api/apiimpl/internal/agent/agent.go
@@ -37,7 +38,9 @@ func SetupHandlers(
r.HandleFunc("/status/health", getHealth).Methods("GET")
r.HandleFunc("/{component}/status", componentStatusHandler).Methods("POST")
r.HandleFunc("/{component}/configs", componentConfigHandler).Methods("GET")

r.HandleFunc("/api/v1/install-info/get", installinfo.HandleGetInstallInfo).Methods("GET")
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We do not version routes for the agent handler. These routes are meant to be used privately by the Agent. Following the previous routes I would remove the /api/v1/ prefix

@GustavoCaso
Copy link
Member

@rahulkaukuntla, the code looks good. I left a few comments, but my biggest concern is about the API users. Who is going to be using this API, us? Will it be used from the same Agent process? I think having a GET and SET handler, if we decide to use the HTTP route, is more than enough. I'm not sure exposing a Clear handler is something we want, as it could potentially remove important information.

Looking forward to your reply 😄

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

@GustavoCaso GustavoCaso GustavoCaso left review comments

@dustmop dustmop Awaiting requested review from dustmop

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
changelog/no-changelog medium review PR review might take time qa/done QA done before merge and regressions are covered by tests team/agent-configuration
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@rahulkaukuntla @GustavoCaso
0