refactor(libdd-data-pipeline): health metrics #1433
+783
−433
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Aaalibaba42
commented
Jan 7, 2026
BenchmarksComparisonBenchmark execution time: 2026-01-22 13:22:23 Comparing candidate commit 4f55a0d in PR branch Found 0 performance improvements and 2 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 55 metrics, 2 unstable metrics. scenario:normalization/normalize_service/normalize_service/Data🐨dog🐶 繋がっ⛰てて
CandidateCandidate benchmark detailsGroup 1
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
Group 5
Group 6
Group 7
Group 8
Group 9
Group 10
Group 11
Group 12
Group 13
Group 14
Group 15
Group 16
Group 17
Group 18
Group 19
BaselineOmitted due to size. |
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1433 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 71.11% 71.18% +0.07%
==========================================
Files 417 418 +1
Lines 67037 67239 +202
==========================================
+ Hits 47671 47863 +192
- Misses 19366 19376 +10
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
Artifact Size Benchmark Reportaarch64-alpine-linux-musl
aarch64-apple-darwin
aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu
libdatadog-x64-windows
libdatadog-x86-windows
x86_64-alpine-linux-musl
x86_64-apple-darwin
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
|
ekump
reviewed
Jan 21, 2026
ekump
reviewed
Jan 21, 2026
| .as_ref() | ||
| .and_then(|v| Tag::new("type", v).ok()); | ||
| let custom_tags = type_tag.as_ref().map(|t| vec![t]); | ||
| self.emit(metric, custom_tags); |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Instead of emitting each metric can we batch them? You'd need to refactor emit to support this, but the DogstatsD client should support it just fine.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If I'm not mistaken, we'd need to go by DogStatsDActionOwned to have the same iterator type to collect (required by generic V of DogStatsDAction). So we either do more copies/allocations, or more send. Given that we are talking about 3 to 6 metrics per SendResult, I tend to think the simplicity of this code is preferable to what amounts to early optimization. But I'm fine doing the change if you think it's preferable o/
ekump
reviewed
Jan 21, 2026
| /// - The second element is an optional tag value for error classification | ||
| pub(crate) fn collect_metrics(&self) -> Vec<(HealthMetric, Option<String>)> { | ||
| // Max capacity: 3 base + 1 outcome + 2 dropped | ||
| let mut metrics = Vec::with_capacity(6); |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we need a Vec? Can we use the visitor pattern and only do a vec allocation at the very end in emit?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree it would be ever so slightly better, but at the cost of a lot of complexity. My take on these kind of things is more often than not to not touch it unless we know it is significant. But as the other comment, if you feel strongly about it, I'm fine with implementing it o/
ekump
reviewed
Jan 21, 2026
| // Emit failed metric with type tag | ||
| metrics.push(( | ||
| HealthMetric::Count(TRANSPORT_TRACES_FAILED, 1), | ||
| Some(error_type.as_tag_value().into_owned()), |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
does this have to be into_owned() at this point?
ekump
reviewed
Jan 21, 2026
| .unwrap_or_else(|_| tag!("type", "unknown")); | ||
| self.emit_metric( | ||
| HealthMetric::Count(health_metrics::TRANSPORT_TRACES_FAILED, 1), | ||
| Some(vec![&resp_tag, &type_tag]), |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why were we sending the status code in two different tags, and why is it ok that we're only sending it in one tag now?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't know. I didn't catch that when refactoring, I just saw there was a codepath for the status code and handled it in the refactored types. And I immediately can't figure out if it's relevant or not, I'll look for some kind of spec.
Aaalibaba42
changed the title
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What does this PR do?
Refactor health metrics emission via common API.
Motivation
Logic was duplicated and would have required to be duplicated again if another usecase arose. Now the core logic can be integrated elsewhere more easiely.
Additional Notes
I don't have the full context of this part of the code, I may have blindspots or problems in the implementation.
How to test the change?
I (mostly AI) added a bunch of tests (maybe too much of them even ?) to validate the changes.