CEL Filter base [CONTP-809] #36591
Draft
CEL Filter base [CONTP-809] #36591
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
github-actions
bot
added
team/agent-runtimes
long review
Go Package Import DifferencesBaseline: 1b8705a
|
Uncompressed package size comparisonComparison with ancestor Diff per package
Decision |
Regression DetectorRegression Detector ResultsMetrics dashboard Baseline: 1b8705a Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected
|
| perf | experiment | goal | Δ mean % | Δ mean % CI | trials | links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ➖ | quality_gate_logs | % cpu utilization | +3.30 | [+0.52, +6.09] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_20mb_12k_contexts_20_senders | memory utilization | +1.29 | [+1.24, +1.33] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu | % cpu utilization | +0.88 | [-0.02, +1.78] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_tree | memory utilization | +0.82 | [+0.68, +0.96] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | otlp_ingest_logs | memory utilization | +0.76 | [+0.62, +0.89] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | ddot_logs | memory utilization | +0.75 | [+0.63, +0.87] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | docker_containers_cpu | % cpu utilization | +0.74 | [-2.26, +3.74] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle | memory utilization | +0.60 | [+0.54, +0.66] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | otlp_ingest_metrics | memory utilization | +0.55 | [+0.39, +0.72] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | quality_gate_idle_all_features | memory utilization | +0.25 | [+0.17, +0.33] | 1 | Logs bounds checks dashboard |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1 | egress throughput | +0.11 | [-0.52, +0.74] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2 | egress throughput | +0.10 | [-0.50, +0.70] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.06 | [-0.59, +0.71] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency | egress throughput | +0.03 | [-0.60, +0.67] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load | egress throughput | +0.03 | [-0.21, +0.26] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | uds_dogstatsd_to_api | ingress throughput | +0.01 | [-0.28, +0.29] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude | ingress throughput | +0.00 | [-0.02, +0.02] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.00 | [-0.58, +0.57] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.01 | [-0.62, +0.61] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency | egress throughput | -0.07 | [-0.64, +0.50] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | docker_containers_memory | memory utilization | -0.11 | [-0.19, -0.04] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | ddot_metrics | memory utilization | -0.19 | [-0.31, -0.07] | 1 | Logs |
| ➖ | tcp_syslog_to_blackhole | ingress throughput | -1.55 | [-1.62, -1.47] | 1 | Logs |
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:
-
Its estimated |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%, indicating the change is big enough to merit a closer look.
-
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.
-
Its configuration does not mark it "erratic".
CI Pass/Fail Decision
✅ Passed. All Quality Gates passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check lost_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle_all_features, 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, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
- quality_gate_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
Static quality checks❌ Please find below the results from static quality gates Error
Gate failure full details
Static quality gates prevent the PR to merge! You can check the static quality gates confluence page for guidance. We also have a toolbox page available to list tools useful to debug the size increase. Successful checksInfo
|
gabedos
force-pushed
the
gabedos/cel-filter-base
branch
3 times, most recently
from
6f01c1a to
16ab220
Compare
gabedos
added
team/container-platform
gabedos
force-pushed
the
gabedos/cel-filter-base
branch
from
16ab220 to
b425ec8
Compare
gabedos
force-pushed
the
gabedos/cel-filter-base
branch
from
b425ec8 to
07c77f4
Compare
gabedos
force-pushed
the
gabedos/cel-filter-base
branch
from
4464510 to
dc4786a
Compare
gabedos
commented
Jun 6, 2025
| // | ||
|
|
||
| // Container represents a filterable container object. | ||
| type Container struct { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You can look through the previous commits to see the iterations that this Container struct has looked like.
What I eventually landed on in the end was using an embedded proto struct. I thought of using a proto struct because it allows third party libraries like CEL-go to be able to understand the object and its attributes. Thus, the CEL parser at compile time is able to throw precise errors if users ever misconfigure any filter. We still have access to all the attributes if we ever decide to use them in some other way.
Currently I am thinking of providing functions to help other users of this component to create the Filterable structs from the wmeta structs. However, this is something that we could theoretically do within the component itself as well. For the case of IsContainerExcluded we need to have the container's owner. This could be either a pod, task, or maybe something else. We could store a reference to wmeta internally and query for the container's owner. My only thought is that this could be repetitive work if the client already has the owner pod for other reasons but on the flip side would make the interface simpler.
gabedos
force-pushed
the
gabedos/cel-filter-base
branch
from
953ddf6 to
6ca11c0
Compare
gabedos
force-pushed
the
gabedos/cel-filter-base
branch
from
6ca11c0 to
a253db6
Compare
gabedos
force-pushed
the
gabedos/cel-filter-base
branch
from
be44b55 to
7418a85
Compare
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?
Motivation
Describe how you validated your changes
Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs
Additional Notes