feat(CI): Add a new task to automatically assign a team label on a dependabot PR

[chouetz]

What does this PR do?

• Add a new task to automatically assign a team label on a dependabot PR
• Add an associated workflow to assign at PR creation

Motivation

Remove manual actions

Additional Notes

Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs

Assignment is based on the occurrence of dependency found in repository files. This heuristic is basic and prevents the PR from being unassigned. It does not prevent a manual redirection.

Describe how to test/QA your changes

Reviewer's Checklist

• If known, an appropriate milestone has been selected; otherwise the Triage milestone is set.
• Use the major_change label if your change either has a major impact on the code base, is impacting multiple teams or is changing important well-established internals of the Agent. This label will be use during QA to make sure each team pay extra attention to the changed behavior. For any customer facing change use a releasenote.
• A release note has been added or the changelog/no-changelog label has been applied.
• Changed code has automated tests for its functionality.
• Adequate QA/testing plan information is provided. Except if the qa/skip-qa label, with required either qa/done or qa/no-code-change labels, are applied.
• At least one team/.. label has been applied, indicating the team(s) that should QA this change.
• If applicable, docs team has been notified or an issue has been opened on the documentation repo.
• If applicable, the need-change/operator and need-change/helm labels have been applied.
• If applicable, the k8s/<min-version> label, indicating the lowest Kubernetes version compatible with this feature.
• If applicable, the config template has been updated.

[pr-commenter]

Bloop Bleep... Dogbot Here

Regression Detector Results

Run ID: 5c711bb9-a956-444f-a30d-ceddf6933a80
Baseline: 51a1be1
Comparison: dfa84a5
Total CPUs: 7

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

No significant changes in experiment optimization goals

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

There were no significant changes in experiment optimization goals at this confidence level and effect size tolerance.

Experiments ignored for regressions

Regressions in experiments with settings containing erratic: true are ignored.

perf	experiment	goal	Δ mean %	Δ mean % CI
➖	file_tree	memory utilization	+0.09	[-0.02, +0.19]
➖	idle	memory utilization	-0.07	[-0.10, -0.05]
➖	file_to_blackhole	% cpu utilization	-0.51	[-7.02, +6.00]

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf	experiment	goal	Δ mean %	Δ mean % CI
➖	otel_to_otel_logs	ingress throughput	+1.18	[+0.44, +1.92]
➖	tcp_syslog_to_blackhole	ingress throughput	+0.48	[+0.40, +0.55]
➖	process_agent_standard_check	memory utilization	+0.37	[+0.31, +0.43]
➖	file_tree	memory utilization	+0.09	[-0.02, +0.19]
➖	tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude	ingress throughput	+0.00	[-0.06, +0.06]
➖	uds_dogstatsd_to_api	ingress throughput	-0.00	[-0.03, +0.03]
➖	trace_agent_msgpack	ingress throughput	-0.03	[-0.05, -0.02]
➖	trace_agent_json	ingress throughput	-0.03	[-0.06, -0.00]
➖	process_agent_real_time_mode	memory utilization	-0.06	[-0.10, -0.02]
➖	idle	memory utilization	-0.07	[-0.10, -0.05]
➖	process_agent_standard_check_with_stats	memory utilization	-0.14	[-0.19, -0.10]
➖	file_to_blackhole	% cpu utilization	-0.51	[-7.02, +6.00]

Explanation

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".

[pgimalac]

Wrote a few comments which came to my mind when reading the code, I understand this needs to handle different languages so having a single perfect implementation is impossible, but I'm not sure this is the best way to do it 😄

EDIT: in particular I think this job only makes sense for the root go.mod file, so the code could be way more specialized for that (only Go, only root module)

[pgimalac]

This will walk down the tree recursively, and will enter different Go modules.
You might want to add a break if there is a go.mod file in the (sub)directory

[chouetz]

I currently assign to the "most retrieved owner" so parsing all the repo was on purpose. But you are right we might want more reviewers assigned teams (even if I'm not 100% sure in case of dependency issue, if we want it to be ignored we should tell it to dependabot in its configuration)

[pgimalac]

I think for Go dependencies, for non-root modules you should just use the Codeowner of the go.mod file.
The root module doesn't have a Codeowner on purpose so I understand it doesn't work, but all other modules should have a narrower scope and be owned by (a) specific team(s)

[chouetz]

I think I prefer to stick with the ownership where the dependency is effectively imported, and I understand your point. Assigning to the owner of the go.mod would mean we should not have a different ownership in the module, and I don't know if this is always true, wdyt?

[pgimalac]

I gave it a quick look and it seems to me the single module for which it's not the case is test/new-e2e.
All other modules (ignoring the root one) have a narrow scope and a specific owner.

[pgimalac]

You might want to request review from those teams too ?
I know I usually don't look at PRs with my team's label (except just before freeze) but I do look at all PRs my team is assigned on

[chouetz]

Currently the role said we just have to assign a label to the correct team. We might want to clarify the process and responsabilities here as I've seen we have "just" 200+ dependabot PR opened which is a mess

[pgimalac]

I think a better way to check if it's a go module is to check if the PR edits a go.mod file.
You should probably add a check that the file is a go or go.mod file for this if block

[chouetz]

CF comment above. Either I consider only the go.mod file and I think it's not correct in terms of ownership, or I consider everything and so a pattern in the dependency looked like an acceptable approximation (knowing there is another match in the else)

[pgimalac]

If you don't want a super specific implementation you might want to just use a grep command to list files containing a given string, it would simplify this whole function
https://stackoverflow.com/a/16957078/10556221

[chouetz]

I agree I use calls to gh, meanwhile I'm not a super fan of python code calling too many external tools..

[pgimalac]

I think calling grep is pretty trivial, it doesn't have side effects or anything, it's just a very convenient tool
But up to you :)

[chouetz]

Wrote a few comments which came to my mind when reading the code, I understand this needs to handle different languages so having a single perfect implementation is impossible, but I'm not sure this is the best way to do it 😄

EDIT: in particular I think this job only makes sense for the root go.mod file, so the code could be way more specialized for that (only Go, only root module)

dependabot updates all version of various dependencies. As a consequence it works also for github actions updates for instance

[pgimalac]

dependabot updates all version of various dependencies. As a consequence it works also for github actions updates for instance

@chouetz yes but workflows are owned by a specific team, so the PR will already be owned by that team.
The root go mod file is the only source of dependencies which doesn't have an owner and whose scope is broader in terms of teams.

[chouetz]

dependabot updates all version of various dependencies. As a consequence it works also for github actions updates for instance

@chouetz yes but workflows are owned by a specific team, so the PR will already be owned by that team. The root go mod file is the only source of dependencies which doesn't have an owner and whose scope is broader in terms of teams.

Yes the objective would also to rely only on CODEOWNERS as ownership definition. You can see in this PR dependabot set team/agent-platform, and my script would rather infer team/serverless.
I think we could be more accurate if we have file ownership on a single place (I'm not confident about our capacity to maintain accurate ownerships on dependabot.yml and in CODEOWNERS ;) )

[pgimalac]

Oh ok I assumed for this kind of situation we just didn't set a label in the dependabot config and let the real code owner set its own team label, but I think I understand better what the goal of the PR is now

[agent-platform-auto-pr]

[Fast Unit Tests Report]

On pipeline 37148540 (CI Visibility). The following jobs did not run any unit tests:

Jobs:

• tests_deb-arm64-py3
• tests_deb-x64-py3
• tests_flavor_dogstatsd_deb-x64
• tests_flavor_heroku_deb-x64
• tests_flavor_iot_deb-x64
• tests_rpm-arm64-py3
• tests_rpm-x64-py3
• tests_windows-x64

If you modified Go files and expected unit tests to run in these jobs, please double check the job logs. If you think tests should have been executed reach out to #agent-developer-experience