Skip to content

[CI Visibility] Bound global coverage memory - #8926

Open
tonyredondo wants to merge 29 commits into
masterfrom
fix/apms-20099-global-coverage-memory
Open

[CI Visibility] Bound global coverage memory#8926
tonyredondo wants to merge 29 commits into
masterfrom
fix/apms-20099-global-coverage-memory

Conversation

@tonyredondo

@tonyredondo tonyredondo commented Jul 22, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Summary of changes

  • Stop retaining every completed test's native coverage counter buffers when global code coverage is enabled.
  • Capture each completed context as compact executed-line bitmaps, merge those bitmaps into a bounded process-wide accumulator, and release the context's ModuleValue buffers immediately.
  • Publish one atomic, run-scoped coverage artifact per instrumented process and combine the process artifacts after dotnet test completes.
  • Preserve per-test coverage, global coverage percentages, executable-line counts, and the existing lock-free coverage-probe ABI.

Reason for change

DefaultWithGlobalCoverageEventHandler previously kept every completed CoverageContextContainer in _coverages until global coverage was calculated at the end of the test process. Each context retained one or more ModuleValue instances backed by Marshal.AllocHGlobal, so native memory grew with the number of completed tests rather than with the amount of unique code being measured.

APMS-20099 reports this failure mode in a Windows VSTest/NUnit run with 5,134 tests: 60,863 live ModuleValue instances retained approximately 16 GB of native buffers and caused testhost.exe to run out of memory before TestSessionEnd could perform the only cleanup.

The fix must release completed contexts during the run without losing their contribution to the final union. It must also support multiple testhost processes, preserve the per-test payload, and avoid adding synchronization to the generated counter-increment hot path.

Implementation details

Release completed contexts without losing coverage

  • CoverageSessionHandle binds each test to the exact handler, context, and lifecycle admission created at test start. This avoids closing the wrong AsyncLocal context and makes construction, abort, and teardown cleanup explicit.
  • At test end, ModuleCoverageData scans the existing byte or integer counter buffer once. A line is covered when its counter is non-zero; this preserves both line-execution and line-call-count modes, including counter overflow.
  • The captured executed-line bitmaps are used for the existing per-test coverage payload and are also merged into GlobalCoverageAccumulator.
  • The context is disposed in finally after capture and merge, so its native buffers are released even if coverage processing fails.
  • Completed-test memory now scales with the compact bitmaps for unique instrumented modules and files, not with the number or raw counter size of completed test contexts.

Preserve global coverage correctness

  • The accumulator keys in-process coverage by loaded Module and retains the original metadata and executable bitmap for that module.
  • Executed bitmaps are combined with a byte-wise OR. Repeated or overlapping contexts are therefore monotonic and idempotent: each executable line contributes at most once to the covered-line count.
  • The executable-line denominator continues to come exclusively from the original executable bitmap; merging additional tests cannot inflate it.
  • Snapshots clone mutable executed bitmaps and use lifecycle admissions so a snapshot cannot be published as complete while starts, active contexts, or another snapshot are still in flight.
  • Metadata inconsistencies, allocation failures, configured limits, or publication failures suppress the incomplete global result instead of publishing a plausible but partial percentage. Per-test native cleanup still runs.

Keep the probe hot path and IL contract unchanged

  • Generated instrumentation still calls CoverageReporter<TMeta>.GetFileCounter(int) and receives the same native pointer used by the existing counter increment IL.
  • The populated module cache remains lock-free on the normal probe path. Synchronization stays in module creation, context lifecycle, merging, snapshots, and publication rather than in generated counter increments.
  • A closed AsyncLocal flow falls back to the process-global module buffer instead of reopening or writing to a disposed test context.
  • The production coverage rewriter is not changed by this PR.

Publish complete coverage across testhost processes

  • Each instrumented process creates a durable pending marker for its output directory and Test Optimization run.
  • At process shutdown, the in-process collector or the TestOptimization shutdown hook seals the same idempotent finalization path, writes one immutable JSON artifact atomically, and removes the pending marker only after the artifact is durable.
  • Artifact and marker names contain a SHA-256 token derived from the Test Optimization run ID plus a process identity, so output directories can be reused without mixing different runs or colliding process outputs.
  • The outer dotnet test instrumentation combines only artifacts belonging to its run, applies the existing ITR backfill, and atomically publishes the final session-coverage-*.json file.
  • A remaining pending marker or malformed selected artifact makes run-scoped combination fail closed. The standalone legacy coverage command keeps its previous best-effort behavior for unrelated JSON files.
  • Readers, incremental combiners, and writers enforce bounds for serialized size, JSON depth and scalars, bitmap sizes, retained bitmap bytes, components, modules, files, and identity strings, bounding retained coverage state and artifact processing even for large or malformed inputs.

Test coverage

  • Unit tests cover both counter modes, exact bitmap and percentage results, overlapping contexts, multiple modules and files, unchanged executable-line denominators, late contexts, owner-bound cleanup, stale AsyncLocal flows, concurrent starts/snapshots/sealing, allocation and metadata failures, configured memory limits, atomic publication, run isolation, malformed artifacts, and ITR consumer behavior.
  • A 10,000-context regression allocates a 128 KiB native buffer per context, verifies that every buffer is released immediately at context close, and verifies the exact final union: 10,000 of 20,000 executable lines, or 50%.
  • Rewriter tests verify that coverage instrumentation retains the existing GetFileCounter pointer shape, does not add exception handlers or invalidate tail. methods, and still releases buffers when instrumented code throws.
  • Windows end-to-end tests execute 6,000 non-parallel NUnit cases in one VSTest testhost through the production dd-trace ci run tool and packaged Datadog collector, using Coverlet 3.2.0 and 6.0.0.
  • The end-to-end assertions verify bounded private-memory growth, one testhost PID, exactly 6,000 started/closed/disposed/merged contexts, zero active context buffers after sealing, balanced native allocations and frees, and the expected common/first/middle/last executed-line sentinels in the final artifact read by the production coverage reader.
  • CI runs the end-to-end regression on Windows x64 and x86. All four Coverlet/architecture executions and the focused correctness, lifecycle, consumer, publication, and IL tests passed for the current PR head.

Other details

@dd-trace-dotnet-ci-bot

dd-trace-dotnet-ci-bot Bot commented Jul 22, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Execution-Time Benchmarks Report ⏱️

Execution-time results for samples comparing This PR (8926) and master.

✅ No regressions detected - check the details below

Full Metrics Comparison

FakeDbCommand

Metric Master (Mean ± 95% CI) Current (Mean ± 95% CI) Change Status
.NET Framework 4.8 - Baseline
duration71.41 ± (71.55 - 71.98) ms73.20 ± (73.21 - 73.74) ms+2.5%✅⬆️
.NET Framework 4.8 - Bailout
duration79.41 ± (78.78 - 79.27) ms77.90 ± (77.55 - 78.08) ms-1.9%✅
.NET Framework 4.8 - CallTarget+Inlining+NGEN
duration1091.86 ± (1094.15 - 1103.52) ms1089.51 ± (1091.57 - 1100.12) ms-0.2%✅
.NET Core 3.1 - Baseline
process.internal_duration_ms22.44 ± (22.39 - 22.49) ms22.46 ± (22.41 - 22.51) ms+0.1%✅⬆️
process.time_to_main_ms84.93 ± (84.63 - 85.23) ms84.87 ± (84.57 - 85.18) ms-0.1%✅
runtime.dotnet.exceptions.count0 ± (0 - 0)0 ± (0 - 0)+0.0%✅
runtime.dotnet.mem.committed11.00 ± (11.00 - 11.01) MB11.01 ± (11.00 - 11.01) MB+0.0%✅⬆️
runtime.dotnet.threads.count12 ± (12 - 12)12 ± (12 - 12)+0.0%✅
.NET Core 3.1 - Bailout
process.internal_duration_ms22.14 ± (22.11 - 22.18) ms22.16 ± (22.13 - 22.19) ms+0.1%✅⬆️
process.time_to_main_ms83.81 ± (83.59 - 84.03) ms83.41 ± (83.23 - 83.58) ms-0.5%✅
runtime.dotnet.exceptions.count0 ± (0 - 0)0 ± (0 - 0)+0.0%✅
runtime.dotnet.mem.committed11.03 ± (11.03 - 11.04) MB11.04 ± (11.03 - 11.04) MB+0.0%✅⬆️
runtime.dotnet.threads.count13 ± (13 - 13)13 ± (13 - 13)+0.0%✅
.NET Core 3.1 - CallTarget+Inlining+NGEN
process.internal_duration_ms210.31 ± (209.42 - 211.20) ms210.29 ± (209.44 - 211.13) ms-0.0%✅
process.time_to_main_ms536.46 ± (535.20 - 537.72) ms539.41 ± (538.29 - 540.53) ms+0.5%✅⬆️
runtime.dotnet.exceptions.count0 ± (0 - 0)0 ± (0 - 0)+0.0%✅
runtime.dotnet.mem.committed49.58 ± (49.55 - 49.61) MB49.61 ± (49.58 - 49.64) MB+0.1%✅⬆️
runtime.dotnet.threads.count28 ± (28 - 28)28 ± (28 - 28)-0.0%✅
.NET 6 - Baseline
process.internal_duration_ms20.80 ± (20.77 - 20.83) ms21.10 ± (21.05 - 21.15) ms+1.4%✅⬆️
process.time_to_main_ms71.01 ± (70.85 - 71.18) ms73.38 ± (73.10 - 73.66) ms+3.3%✅⬆️
runtime.dotnet.exceptions.count0 ± (0 - 0)0 ± (0 - 0)+0.0%✅
runtime.dotnet.mem.committed10.73 ± (10.73 - 10.73) MB10.73 ± (10.72 - 10.73) MB-0.0%✅
runtime.dotnet.threads.count10 ± (10 - 10)10 ± (10 - 10)+0.0%✅
.NET 6 - Bailout
process.internal_duration_ms20.72 ± (20.69 - 20.75) ms20.99 ± (20.95 - 21.03) ms+1.3%✅⬆️
process.time_to_main_ms71.98 ± (71.84 - 72.12) ms73.64 ± (73.40 - 73.89) ms+2.3%✅⬆️
runtime.dotnet.exceptions.count0 ± (0 - 0)0 ± (0 - 0)+0.0%✅
runtime.dotnet.mem.committed10.85 ± (10.84 - 10.85) MB10.85 ± (10.85 - 10.85) MB+0.0%✅⬆️
runtime.dotnet.threads.count11 ± (11 - 11)11 ± (11 - 11)+0.0%✅
.NET 6 - CallTarget+Inlining+NGEN
process.internal_duration_ms371.10 ± (368.94 - 373.25) ms373.75 ± (371.66 - 375.84) ms+0.7%✅⬆️
process.time_to_main_ms542.48 ± (541.38 - 543.59) ms545.39 ± (544.33 - 546.44) ms+0.5%✅⬆️
runtime.dotnet.exceptions.count0 ± (0 - 0)0 ± (0 - 0)+0.0%✅
runtime.dotnet.mem.committed50.68 ± (50.66 - 50.70) MB50.71 ± (50.69 - 50.73) MB+0.1%✅⬆️
runtime.dotnet.threads.count28 ± (28 - 28)28 ± (28 - 28)-0.0%✅
.NET 8 - Baseline
process.internal_duration_ms19.45 ± (19.41 - 19.49) ms19.10 ± (19.07 - 19.14) ms-1.8%✅
process.time_to_main_ms73.45 ± (73.20 - 73.69) ms69.96 ± (69.84 - 70.08) ms-4.7%✅
runtime.dotnet.exceptions.count0 ± (0 - 0)0 ± (0 - 0)+0.0%✅
runtime.dotnet.mem.committed7.76 ± (7.76 - 7.77) MB7.77 ± (7.77 - 7.78) MB+0.2%✅⬆️
runtime.dotnet.threads.count10 ± (10 - 10)10 ± (10 - 10)+0.0%✅
.NET 8 - Bailout
process.internal_duration_ms19.25 ± (19.22 - 19.28) ms19.34 ± (19.30 - 19.39) ms+0.5%✅⬆️
process.time_to_main_ms72.76 ± (72.56 - 72.96) ms73.95 ± (73.68 - 74.22) ms+1.6%✅⬆️
runtime.dotnet.exceptions.count0 ± (0 - 0)0 ± (0 - 0)+0.0%✅
runtime.dotnet.mem.committed7.83 ± (7.82 - 7.84) MB7.82 ± (7.82 - 7.82) MB-0.1%✅
runtime.dotnet.threads.count11 ± (11 - 11)11 ± (11 - 11)+0.0%✅
.NET 8 - CallTarget+Inlining+NGEN
process.internal_duration_ms298.13 ± (295.96 - 300.29) ms297.53 ± (294.99 - 300.08) ms-0.2%✅
process.time_to_main_ms493.03 ± (491.99 - 494.07) ms494.94 ± (493.95 - 495.92) ms+0.4%✅⬆️
runtime.dotnet.exceptions.count0 ± (0 - 0)0 ± (0 - 0)+0.0%✅
runtime.dotnet.mem.committed38.09 ± (38.06 - 38.12) MB38.17 ± (38.15 - 38.20) MB+0.2%✅⬆️
runtime.dotnet.threads.count27 ± (27 - 27)27 ± (27 - 27)-0.1%✅

HttpMessageHandler

Metric Master (Mean ± 95% CI) Current (Mean ± 95% CI) Change Status
.NET Framework 4.8 - Baseline
duration206.48 ± (205.67 - 206.56) ms208.89 ± (208.86 - 209.64) ms+1.2%✅⬆️
.NET Framework 4.8 - Bailout
duration209.08 ± (208.71 - 209.61) ms213.76 ± (213.46 - 214.06) ms+2.2%✅⬆️
.NET Framework 4.8 - CallTarget+Inlining+NGEN
duration1223.14 ± (1226.41 - 1234.63) ms1253.85 ± (1251.33 - 1256.98) ms+2.5%✅⬆️
.NET Core 3.1 - Baseline
process.internal_duration_ms197.09 ± (196.81 - 197.38) ms200.88 ± (200.51 - 201.24) ms+1.9%✅⬆️
process.time_to_main_ms86.14 ± (85.91 - 86.37) ms88.23 ± (88.01 - 88.44) ms+2.4%✅⬆️
runtime.dotnet.exceptions.count3 ± (3 - 3)3 ± (3 - 3)+0.0%✅
runtime.dotnet.mem.committed16.13 ± (16.10 - 16.16) MB16.14 ± (16.11 - 16.16) MB+0.1%✅⬆️
runtime.dotnet.threads.count20 ± (20 - 20)19 ± (19 - 20)-1.4%✅
.NET Core 3.1 - Bailout
process.internal_duration_ms196.56 ± (196.25 - 196.87) ms200.69 ± (200.38 - 201.01) ms+2.1%✅⬆️
process.time_to_main_ms87.25 ± (87.11 - 87.39) ms90.31 ± (90.16 - 90.47) ms+3.5%✅⬆️
runtime.dotnet.exceptions.count3 ± (3 - 3)3 ± (3 - 3)+0.0%✅
runtime.dotnet.mem.committed16.18 ± (16.16 - 16.20) MB16.13 ± (16.11 - 16.15) MB-0.3%✅
runtime.dotnet.threads.count21 ± (21 - 21)21 ± (21 - 21)+1.0%✅⬆️
.NET Core 3.1 - CallTarget+Inlining+NGEN
process.internal_duration_ms391.40 ± (390.05 - 392.75) ms397.76 ± (396.35 - 399.17) ms+1.6%✅⬆️
process.time_to_main_ms550.76 ± (549.72 - 551.81) ms561.20 ± (559.89 - 562.51) ms+1.9%✅⬆️
runtime.dotnet.exceptions.count3 ± (3 - 3)3 ± (3 - 3)+0.0%✅
runtime.dotnet.mem.committed59.27 ± (59.06 - 59.47) MB59.82 ± (59.68 - 59.96) MB+0.9%✅⬆️
runtime.dotnet.threads.count30 ± (30 - 30)30 ± (30 - 30)+0.2%✅⬆️
.NET 6 - Baseline
process.internal_duration_ms203.12 ± (202.82 - 203.42) ms206.16 ± (205.71 - 206.60) ms+1.5%✅⬆️
process.time_to_main_ms75.93 ± (75.72 - 76.14) ms77.53 ± (77.29 - 77.77) ms+2.1%✅⬆️
runtime.dotnet.exceptions.count4 ± (4 - 4)4 ± (4 - 4)+0.0%✅
runtime.dotnet.mem.committed16.56 ± (16.54 - 16.59) MB16.33 ± (16.30 - 16.35) MB-1.4%✅
runtime.dotnet.threads.count19 ± (19 - 19)19 ± (19 - 20)+1.8%✅⬆️
.NET 6 - Bailout
process.internal_duration_ms202.31 ± (202.02 - 202.60) ms205.32 ± (204.96 - 205.69) ms+1.5%✅⬆️
process.time_to_main_ms76.42 ± (76.29 - 76.54) ms79.11 ± (78.89 - 79.32) ms+3.5%✅⬆️
runtime.dotnet.exceptions.count4 ± (4 - 4)4 ± (4 - 4)+0.0%✅
runtime.dotnet.mem.committed16.56 ± (16.54 - 16.58) MB16.44 ± (16.41 - 16.47) MB-0.7%✅
runtime.dotnet.threads.count21 ± (20 - 21)20 ± (20 - 20)-0.7%✅
.NET 6 - CallTarget+Inlining+NGEN
process.internal_duration_ms582.98 ± (580.14 - 585.82) ms578.71 ± (576.65 - 580.77) ms-0.7%✅
process.time_to_main_ms560.88 ± (559.82 - 561.94) ms573.96 ± (572.65 - 575.26) ms+2.3%✅⬆️
runtime.dotnet.exceptions.count4 ± (4 - 4)4 ± (4 - 4)+0.0%✅
runtime.dotnet.mem.committed61.61 ± (61.52 - 61.70) MB61.57 ± (61.53 - 61.61) MB-0.1%✅
runtime.dotnet.threads.count31 ± (31 - 31)31 ± (31 - 31)-0.3%✅
.NET 8 - Baseline
process.internal_duration_ms201.23 ± (200.91 - 201.56) ms205.80 ± (205.39 - 206.20) ms+2.3%✅⬆️
process.time_to_main_ms74.96 ± (74.77 - 75.15) ms77.15 ± (76.89 - 77.40) ms+2.9%✅⬆️
runtime.dotnet.exceptions.count4 ± (4 - 4)4 ± (4 - 4)+0.0%✅
runtime.dotnet.mem.committed11.86 ± (11.84 - 11.89) MB11.85 ± (11.82 - 11.87) MB-0.1%✅
runtime.dotnet.threads.count19 ± (19 - 19)19 ± (19 - 19)+0.3%✅⬆️
.NET 8 - Bailout
process.internal_duration_ms200.14 ± (199.83 - 200.46) ms205.41 ± (205.08 - 205.75) ms+2.6%✅⬆️
process.time_to_main_ms75.97 ± (75.85 - 76.10) ms78.39 ± (78.21 - 78.56) ms+3.2%✅⬆️
runtime.dotnet.exceptions.count4 ± (4 - 4)4 ± (4 - 4)+0.0%✅
runtime.dotnet.mem.committed11.91 ± (11.89 - 11.93) MB11.82 ± (11.80 - 11.84) MB-0.8%✅
runtime.dotnet.threads.count19 ± (19 - 20)20 ± (20 - 20)+1.7%✅⬆️
.NET 8 - CallTarget+Inlining+NGEN
process.internal_duration_ms507.64 ± (504.62 - 510.66) ms514.38 ± (510.24 - 518.52) ms+1.3%✅⬆️
process.time_to_main_ms514.35 ± (513.54 - 515.16) ms524.80 ± (524.08 - 525.52) ms+2.0%✅⬆️
runtime.dotnet.exceptions.count4 ± (4 - 4)4 ± (4 - 4)+0.0%✅
runtime.dotnet.mem.committed51.52 ± (51.48 - 51.57) MB51.45 ± (51.40 - 51.49) MB-0.1%✅
runtime.dotnet.threads.count30 ± (30 - 30)30 ± (30 - 30)+0.3%✅⬆️
Comparison explanation

Execution-time benchmarks measure the whole time it takes to execute a program, and are intended to measure the one-off costs. Cases where the execution time results for the PR are worse than latest master results are highlighted in **red**. The following thresholds were used for comparing the execution times:

  • Welch test with statistical test for significance of 5%
  • Only results indicating a difference greater than 5% and 5 ms are considered.

Note that these results are based on a single point-in-time result for each branch. For full results, see the dashboard.

Graphs show the p99 interval based on the mean and StdDev of the test run, as well as the mean value of the run (shown as a diamond below the graph).

Duration charts
FakeDbCommand (.NET Framework 4.8) 
gantt
    title Execution time (ms) FakeDbCommand (.NET Framework 4.8)
    dateFormat  x
    axisFormat %Q
    todayMarker off
    section Baseline
    This PR (8926) - mean (73ms)  : 70, 77
    master - mean (72ms)  : 69, 75

    section Bailout
    This PR (8926) - mean (78ms)  : 74, 81
    master - mean (79ms)  : 75, 83

    section CallTarget+Inlining+NGEN
    This PR (8926) - mean (1,096ms)  : 1035, 1156
    master - mean (1,099ms)  : 1029, 1168
Loading
FakeDbCommand (.NET Core 3.1) 
gantt
    title Execution time (ms) FakeDbCommand (.NET Core 3.1)
    dateFormat  x
    axisFormat %Q
    todayMarker off
    section Baseline
    This PR (8926) - mean (115ms)  : 108, 121
    master - mean (115ms)  : 109, 120

    section Bailout
    This PR (8926) - mean (112ms)  : 108, 116
    master - mean (113ms)  : 108, 117

    section CallTarget+Inlining+NGEN
    This PR (8926) - mean (787ms)  : 759, 815
    master - mean (783ms)  : 760, 807
Loading
FakeDbCommand (.NET 6) 
gantt
    title Execution time (ms) FakeDbCommand (.NET 6)
    dateFormat  x
    axisFormat %Q
    todayMarker off
    section Baseline
    This PR (8926) - mean (101ms)  : 95, 108
    master - mean (98ms)  : 94, 102

    section Bailout
    This PR (8926) - mean (101ms)  : 96, 107
    master - mean (99ms)  : 97, 100

    section CallTarget+Inlining+NGEN
    This PR (8926) - mean (946ms)  : 914, 978
    master - mean (943ms)  : 900, 987
Loading
FakeDbCommand (.NET 8) 
gantt
    title Execution time (ms) FakeDbCommand (.NET 8)
    dateFormat  x
    axisFormat %Q
    todayMarker off
    section Baseline
    This PR (8926) - mean (96ms)  : 94, 99
    master - mean (100ms)  : 94, 106

    section Bailout
    This PR (8926) - mean (102ms)  : 96, 108
    master - mean (99ms)  : 95, 104

    section CallTarget+Inlining+NGEN
    This PR (8926) - mean (822ms)  : 781, 862
    master - mean (819ms)  : 781, 857
Loading
HttpMessageHandler (.NET Framework 4.8) 
gantt
    title Execution time (ms) HttpMessageHandler (.NET Framework 4.8)
    dateFormat  x
    axisFormat %Q
    todayMarker off
    section Baseline
    This PR (8926) - mean (209ms)  : 205, 213
    master - mean (206ms)  : 202, 210

    section Bailout
    This PR (8926) - mean (214ms)  : 211, 217
    master - mean (209ms)  : 204, 214

    section CallTarget+Inlining+NGEN
    This PR (8926) - mean (1,254ms)  : 1216, 1292
    master - mean (1,231ms)  : 1172, 1289
Loading
HttpMessageHandler (.NET Core 3.1) 
gantt
    title Execution time (ms) HttpMessageHandler (.NET Core 3.1)
    dateFormat  x
    axisFormat %Q
    todayMarker off
    section Baseline
    This PR (8926) - mean (300ms)  : 295, 304
    master - mean (293ms)  : 287, 298

    section Bailout
    This PR (8926) - mean (301ms)  : 297, 305
    master - mean (293ms)  : 289, 297

    section CallTarget+Inlining+NGEN
    This PR (8926) - mean (1,001ms)  : 976, 1026
    master - mean (981ms)  : 954, 1008
Loading
HttpMessageHandler (.NET 6) 
gantt
    title Execution time (ms) HttpMessageHandler (.NET 6)
    dateFormat  x
    axisFormat %Q
    todayMarker off
    section Baseline
    This PR (8926) - mean (294ms)  : 288, 300
    master - mean (288ms)  : 283, 292

    section Bailout
    This PR (8926) - mean (294ms)  : 289, 300
    master - mean (288ms)  : 284, 291

    section CallTarget+Inlining+NGEN
    This PR (8926) - mean (1,190ms)  : 1157, 1222
    master - mean (1,173ms)  : 1143, 1203
Loading
HttpMessageHandler (.NET 8) 
gantt
    title Execution time (ms) HttpMessageHandler (.NET 8)
    dateFormat  x
    axisFormat %Q
    todayMarker off
    section Baseline
    This PR (8926) - mean (294ms)  : 288, 300
    master - mean (286ms)  : 282, 291

    section Bailout
    This PR (8926) - mean (294ms)  : 290, 298
    master - mean (286ms)  : 281, 291

    section CallTarget+Inlining+NGEN
    This PR (8926) - mean (1,074ms)  : 1008, 1141
    master - mean (1,054ms)  : 1006, 1102
Loading

@tonyredondo

tonyredondo commented Jul 22, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@codex review

chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]
chatgpt-codex-connector Bot reviewed Jul 22, 2026
View reviewed changes

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

💡 Codex Review

dd-trace-dotnet/tracer/src/Datadog.Trace.Tools.Runner/CiUtils.cs

Lines 427 to 429 in 31856d7

else if (isDotnetTestCommand)
{
Log.Debug("DatadogCoverage data collector was not added because Microsoft Testing Platform coverage is already selected.");

P2 Badge Seal global coverage when Testing Platform skips the collector

When dotnet test uses Microsoft Testing Platform coverage, this branch deliberately omits the Datadog in-proc collector. However, RequestSeal() is only invoked from that collector's TestSessionEnd, while code coverage remains enabled and TestModule still publishes the new pending/raw global-coverage artifacts. Those artifacts therefore never receive ready markers; reusing an explicit coverage directory leaves an incomplete protocol set that makes subsequent reconciliation reject both the stale and newly produced coverage files. Add an equivalent end-of-run sealing path for the Testing Platform case, or avoid creating protocol artifacts there.

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

@pr-commenter

pr-commenter Bot commented Jul 22, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Benchmarks

Benchmark execution time: 2026-08-03 15:00:42

Comparing candidate commit 13d8b26 in PR branch fix/apms-20099-global-coverage-memory with baseline commit 3643d74 in branch master.

📊 Benchmarking dashboard

Found 0 performance improvements and 2 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 69 metrics, 1 unstable metrics, 65 known flaky benchmarks, 61 flaky benchmarks without significant changes.

Explanation

This is an A/B test comparing a candidate commit's performance against that of a baseline commit. Performance changes are noted in the tables below as:

  • 🟩 = significantly better candidate vs. baseline
  • 🟥 = significantly worse candidate vs. baseline

We compute a confidence interval (CI) over the relative difference of means between metrics from the candidate and baseline commits, considering the baseline as the reference.

If the CI is entirely outside the configured SIGNIFICANT_IMPACT_THRESHOLD (or the deprecated UNCONFIDENCE_THRESHOLD), the change is considered significant.

Feel free to reach out to #apm-benchmarking-platform on Slack if you have any questions.

More details about the CI and significant changes

You can imagine this CI as a range of values that is likely to contain the true difference of means between the candidate and baseline commits.

CIs of the difference of means are often centered around 0%, because often changes are not that big:

---------------------------------(------|---^--------)-------------------------------->
                              -0.6%    0%  0.3%     +1.2%
                                 |          |        |
         lower bound of the CI --'          |        |
sample mean (center of the CI) -------------'        |
         upper bound of the CI ----------------------'

As described above, a change is considered significant if the CI is entirely outside the configured SIGNIFICANT_IMPACT_THRESHOLD (or the deprecated UNCONFIDENCE_THRESHOLD).

For instance, for an execution time metric, this confidence interval indicates a significantly worse performance:

----------------------------------------|---------|---(---------^---------)---------->
                                       0%        1%  1.3%      2.2%      3.1%
                                                  |   |         |         |
       significant impact threshold --------------'   |         |         |
                      lower bound of CI --------------'         |         |
       sample mean (center of the CI) --------------------------'         |
                      upper bound of CI ----------------------------------'

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.DbCommandBenchmark.ExecuteNonQuery net472

  • 🟥 throughput [-27392.339op/s; -24285.033op/s] or [-7.715%; -6.840%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.HttpClientBenchmark.SendAsync net472

  • 🟥 throughput [-5076.608op/s; -4673.842op/s] or [-5.795%; -5.336%]

Unstable benchmarks

These benchmarks have a confidence interval too wide to call a change; treat them as noise rather than signal.

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.HttpClientBenchmark.SendAsync netcoreapp3.1

  • unstable execution_time [-28.446ms; -8.237ms] or [-14.206%; -4.113%]

Known flaky benchmarks

These benchmarks are marked as flaky and will not trigger a failure. Modify FLAKY_BENCHMARKS_REGEX to control which benchmarks are marked as flaky.

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.ActivityBenchmark.StartStopWithChild net472

  • 🟥 throughput [-8496.909op/s; -7765.324op/s] or [-10.075%; -9.207%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.ActivityBenchmark.StartStopWithChild netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟥 throughput [-9880.202op/s; -8665.028op/s] or [-10.046%; -8.810%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.AgentWriterBenchmark.WriteAndFlushEnrichedTraces net472

  • 🟥 execution_time [+298.417ms; +299.967ms] or [+148.085%; +148.854%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-46.326op/s; -42.722op/s] or [-8.335%; -7.687%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.AgentWriterBenchmark.WriteAndFlushEnrichedTraces net6.0

  • 🟥 execution_time [+380.640ms; +383.619ms] or [+300.729%; +303.083%]
  • 🟩 throughput [+87.145op/s; +94.187op/s] or [+11.490%; +12.418%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.AgentWriterBenchmark.WriteAndFlushEnrichedTraces netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟥 execution_time [+396.964ms; +398.741ms] or [+351.298%; +352.871%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecBodyBenchmark.AllCycleMoreComplexBody net472

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+4.693KB; +4.694KB] or [+98.806%; +98.821%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-60361.925op/s; -59979.904op/s] or [-46.965%; -46.667%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecBodyBenchmark.AllCycleMoreComplexBody net6.0

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+3.816KB; +3.816KB] or [+80.699%; +80.711%]
  • 🟩 execution_time [-15.582ms; -11.396ms] or [-7.277%; -5.323%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-59227.264op/s; -56460.453op/s] or [-43.233%; -41.213%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecBodyBenchmark.AllCycleMoreComplexBody netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+4.544KB; +4.544KB] or [+98.261%; +98.274%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-48658.535op/s; -46414.880op/s] or [-43.993%; -41.964%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecBodyBenchmark.AllCycleSimpleBody net472

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+1.315KB; +1.315KB] or [+106.388%; +106.404%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-298692.670op/s; -293992.614op/s] or [-30.498%; -30.018%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecBodyBenchmark.AllCycleSimpleBody net6.0

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+479 bytes; +480 bytes] or [+39.212%; +39.221%]
  • 🟩 execution_time [-26.687ms; -21.796ms] or [-11.901%; -9.720%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-73388.772op/s; -48153.576op/s] or [-7.840%; -5.144%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecBodyBenchmark.AllCycleSimpleBody netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+1.280KB; +1.280KB] or [+105.947%; +105.963%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-160260.054op/s; -143922.458op/s] or [-23.026%; -20.679%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecBodyBenchmark.ObjectExtractorMoreComplexBody net472

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+3.378KB; +3.378KB] or [+89.003%; +89.017%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-72824.972op/s; -72068.663op/s] or [-49.010%; -48.501%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecBodyBenchmark.ObjectExtractorMoreComplexBody net6.0

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+3.336KB; +3.336KB] or [+88.150%; +88.161%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-73009.531op/s; -70108.934op/s] or [-46.455%; -44.609%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecBodyBenchmark.ObjectExtractorMoreComplexBody netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+3.264KB; +3.264KB] or [+88.493%; +88.506%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-55502.924op/s; -52887.216op/s] or [-44.215%; -42.132%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecBodyBenchmark.ObjectExtractorSimpleBody net6.0

  • 🟩 throughput [+317249.734op/s; +333556.337op/s] or [+10.578%; +11.122%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecBodyBenchmark.ObjectExtractorSimpleBody netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟩 execution_time [-19.207ms; -14.871ms] or [-8.854%; -6.855%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecEncoderBenchmark.EncodeArgs net472

  • 🟩 allocated_mem [-13.759KB; -13.757KB] or [-42.326%; -42.318%]
  • 🟥 execution_time [+300.242ms; +301.039ms] or [+150.021%; +150.419%]
  • 🟩 throughput [+970.095op/s; +986.998op/s] or [+10.715%; +10.901%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecEncoderBenchmark.EncodeArgs net6.0

  • 🟩 allocated_mem [-13.722KB; -13.718KB] or [-42.341%; -42.329%]
  • 🟥 execution_time [+299.065ms; +302.744ms] or [+150.819%; +152.674%]
  • 🟩 throughput [+2095.265op/s; +2320.590op/s] or [+16.026%; +17.749%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecEncoderBenchmark.EncodeArgs netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟩 allocated_mem [-13.722KB; -13.718KB] or [-42.341%; -42.329%]
  • 🟥 execution_time [+300.501ms; +303.311ms] or [+151.369%; +152.784%]
  • 🟩 throughput [+1865.391op/s; +2000.004op/s] or [+18.009%; +19.309%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecEncoderBenchmark.EncodeLegacyArgs net472

  • 🟥 execution_time [+296.156ms; +297.031ms] or [+145.460%; +145.890%]
  • 🟩 throughput [+570.591op/s; +585.846op/s] or [+15.127%; +15.531%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecEncoderBenchmark.EncodeLegacyArgs net6.0

  • 🟥 execution_time [+295.828ms; +297.816ms] or [+144.619%; +145.591%]
  • 🟩 throughput [+2795.313op/s; +2853.252op/s] or [+40.611%; +41.452%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecEncoderBenchmark.EncodeLegacyArgs netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟥 execution_time [+300.590ms; +301.249ms] or [+150.234%; +150.564%]
  • 🟩 throughput [+1423.988op/s; +1440.568op/s] or [+28.265%; +28.594%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecWafBenchmark.RunWafRealisticBenchmark net472

  • 🟩 execution_time [-147.971µs; -144.253µs] or [-30.380%; -29.617%]
  • 🟩 throughput [+868.429op/s; +892.100op/s] or [+42.296%; +43.449%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecWafBenchmark.RunWafRealisticBenchmark net6.0

  • 🟩 execution_time [-140.729µs; -114.153µs] or [-32.276%; -26.181%]
  • 🟩 throughput [+880.662op/s; +1001.050op/s] or [+38.288%; +43.522%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecWafBenchmark.RunWafRealisticBenchmark netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟩 execution_time [-141.830µs; -119.774µs] or [-30.387%; -25.662%]
  • 🟩 throughput [+769.137op/s; +853.111op/s] or [+35.505%; +39.381%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecWafBenchmark.RunWafRealisticBenchmarkWithAttack net472

  • 🟩 execution_time [-127.083µs; -122.305µs] or [-34.312%; -33.021%]
  • 🟩 throughput [+1342.435op/s; +1402.735op/s] or [+49.718%; +51.951%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecWafBenchmark.RunWafRealisticBenchmarkWithAttack net6.0

  • 🟩 execution_time [-104.177µs; -80.606µs] or [-33.258%; -25.733%]
  • 🟩 throughput [+1220.611op/s; +1421.319op/s] or [+38.050%; +44.307%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecWafBenchmark.RunWafRealisticBenchmarkWithAttack netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟩 execution_time [-133.853µs; -106.811µs] or [-36.617%; -29.219%]
  • 🟩 throughput [+1216.227op/s; +1434.979op/s] or [+43.646%; +51.496%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.AspNetCoreBenchmark.SendRequest net472

  • 🟥 execution_time [+299.477ms; +300.282ms] or [+149.470%; +149.871%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.AspNetCoreBenchmark.SendRequest net6.0

  • 🟥 execution_time [+415.359ms; +423.961ms] or [+451.305%; +460.651%]
  • 🟩 throughput [+887.101op/s; +1065.384op/s] or [+7.289%; +8.754%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.AspNetCoreBenchmark.SendRequest netcoreapp3.1

  • unstable execution_time [+322.620ms; +355.214ms] or [+244.962%; +269.711%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.CIVisibilityProtocolWriterBenchmark.WriteAndFlushEnrichedTraces net472

  • 🟥 allocated_mem [+2.841KB; +2.846KB] or [+5.047%; +5.057%]
  • unstable execution_time [+353.629ms; +408.064ms] or [+162.595%; +187.624%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-584.586op/s; -541.591op/s] or [-52.969%; -49.073%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.CIVisibilityProtocolWriterBenchmark.WriteAndFlushEnrichedTraces net6.0

  • unstable execution_time [+207.377ms; +340.676ms] or [+88.375%; +145.182%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-672.825op/s; -589.305op/s] or [-44.878%; -39.307%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.CIVisibilityProtocolWriterBenchmark.WriteAndFlushEnrichedTraces netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟥 execution_time [+334.715ms; +345.275ms] or [+200.198%; +206.515%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-388.747op/s; -351.324op/s] or [-27.068%; -24.462%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.CharSliceBenchmark.OptimizedCharSliceWithPool net6.0

  • 🟩 execution_time [-63.955µs; -56.784µs] or [-5.931%; -5.266%]
  • 🟩 throughput [+51.783op/s; +58.388op/s] or [+5.583%; +6.295%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.CharSliceBenchmark.OriginalCharSlice net6.0

  • 🟩 execution_time [-155.206µs; -102.007µs] or [-7.862%; -5.167%]
  • 🟩 throughput [+29.141op/s; +44.220op/s] or [+5.753%; +8.729%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.ElasticsearchBenchmark.CallElasticsearch net472

  • 🟥 execution_time [+301.753ms; +303.080ms] or [+151.957%; +152.625%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.ElasticsearchBenchmark.CallElasticsearch net6.0

  • 🟥 execution_time [+297.013ms; +299.107ms] or [+148.833%; +149.883%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.ElasticsearchBenchmark.CallElasticsearch netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟥 execution_time [+301.255ms; +304.589ms] or [+151.338%; +153.012%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.ElasticsearchBenchmark.CallElasticsearchAsync net472

  • 🟥 execution_time [+301.276ms; +302.810ms] or [+151.291%; +152.061%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.ElasticsearchBenchmark.CallElasticsearchAsync net6.0

  • 🟥 execution_time [+295.247ms; +299.238ms] or [+145.986%; +147.960%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.ElasticsearchBenchmark.CallElasticsearchAsync netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟥 execution_time [+302.873ms; +306.545ms] or [+153.509%; +155.370%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.GraphQLBenchmark.ExecuteAsync net472

  • 🟥 execution_time [+300.830ms; +302.876ms] or [+150.989%; +152.016%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.GraphQLBenchmark.ExecuteAsync net6.0

  • 🟥 execution_time [+300.723ms; +303.680ms] or [+149.883%; +151.357%]
  • 🟩 throughput [+40383.128op/s; +45882.213op/s] or [+8.019%; +9.111%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.GraphQLBenchmark.ExecuteAsync netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟥 execution_time [+300.024ms; +303.840ms] or [+149.259%; +151.158%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.ILoggerBenchmark.EnrichedLog net6.0

  • 🟩 execution_time [-15.729ms; -12.073ms] or [-7.314%; -5.614%]
  • 🟩 throughput [+22327.132op/s; +28879.914op/s] or [+6.125%; +7.923%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Iast.StringAspectsBenchmark.StringConcatAspectBenchmark net472

  • unstable execution_time [+13.481µs; +59.617µs] or [+3.330%; +14.726%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Iast.StringAspectsBenchmark.StringConcatAspectBenchmark net6.0

  • 🟩 allocated_mem [-20.207KB; -20.185KB] or [-7.371%; -7.363%]
  • unstable execution_time [-40.753µs; +15.891µs] or [-8.055%; +3.141%]
  • unstable throughput [-54.626op/s; +147.614op/s] or [-2.726%; +7.366%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Iast.StringAspectsBenchmark.StringConcatAspectBenchmark netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟩 allocated_mem [-14.688KB; -14.670KB] or [-5.355%; -5.348%]
  • unstable execution_time [-56.446µs; +6.437µs] or [-9.782%; +1.115%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Iast.StringAspectsBenchmark.StringConcatBenchmark net6.0

  • unstable execution_time [+7.663µs; +12.483µs] or [+18.114%; +29.506%]
  • 🟥 throughput [-5412.108op/s; -3513.882op/s] or [-22.783%; -14.792%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Iast.StringAspectsBenchmark.StringConcatBenchmark netcoreapp3.1

  • unstable execution_time [-15.255µs; -7.883µs] or [-23.667%; -12.231%]
  • 🟩 throughput [+2016.987op/s; +3579.869op/s] or [+12.375%; +21.964%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Log4netBenchmark.EnrichedLog net472

  • 🟥 execution_time [+302.063ms; +304.094ms] or [+152.679%; +153.706%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Log4netBenchmark.EnrichedLog net6.0

  • 🟥 execution_time [+306.240ms; +310.282ms] or [+155.875%; +157.933%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Log4netBenchmark.EnrichedLog netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟥 execution_time [+299.110ms; +301.816ms] or [+149.742%; +151.096%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.RedisBenchmark.SendReceive net6.0

  • 🟩 throughput [+36897.189op/s; +39728.061op/s] or [+6.984%; +7.520%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SerilogBenchmark.EnrichedLog net472

  • 🟥 execution_time [+301.069ms; +303.057ms] or [+150.056%; +151.046%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SerilogBenchmark.EnrichedLog net6.0

  • 🟥 execution_time [+301.419ms; +304.329ms] or [+151.358%; +152.819%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SerilogBenchmark.EnrichedLog netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟥 execution_time [+304.205ms; +306.664ms] or [+154.273%; +155.520%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SingleSpanAspNetCoreBenchmark.SingleSpanAspNetCore net472

  • 🟥 execution_time [+299.257ms; +300.302ms] or [+149.271%; +149.792%]
  • 🟩 throughput [+65871991.407op/s; +66232253.414op/s] or [+47.972%; +48.234%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SingleSpanAspNetCoreBenchmark.SingleSpanAspNetCore net6.0

  • 🟥 execution_time [+419.672ms; +424.290ms] or [+521.936%; +527.681%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SingleSpanAspNetCoreBenchmark.SingleSpanAspNetCore netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟥 execution_time [+299.868ms; +301.166ms] or [+149.567%; +150.214%]
  • 🟩 throughput [+17834485.215op/s; +18818889.157op/s] or [+7.900%; +8.336%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SpanBenchmark.StartFinishScope net6.0

  • 🟩 throughput [+62313.351op/s; +107293.784op/s] or [+5.818%; +10.018%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SpanBenchmark.StartFinishScope netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟩 throughput [+47600.642op/s; +67278.528op/s] or [+5.510%; +7.787%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SpanBenchmark.StartFinishSpan netcoreapp3.1

  • 🟩 throughput [+84268.292op/s; +91476.896op/s] or [+8.369%; +9.085%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SpanBenchmark.StartFinishTwoScopes net6.0

  • 🟩 throughput [+46306.203op/s; +52919.935op/s] or [+8.408%; +9.609%]

Known flaky benchmarks without significant changes:

  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.ActivityBenchmark.StartSpan net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.ActivityBenchmark.StartSpan net6.0
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.ActivityBenchmark.StartSpan netcoreapp3.1
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.ActivityBenchmark.StartSpan_AddEvent_Sampled net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.ActivityBenchmark.StartSpan_AddEvent_Sampled net6.0
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.ActivityBenchmark.StartSpan_AddEvent_Sampled netcoreapp3.1
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.ActivityBenchmark.StartSpan_GetContext_Sampled net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.ActivityBenchmark.StartSpan_GetContext_Sampled net6.0
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.ActivityBenchmark.StartSpan_GetContext_Sampled netcoreapp3.1
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.ActivityBenchmark.StartSpan_SetAttributes_Sampled net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.ActivityBenchmark.StartSpan_SetAttributes_Sampled net6.0
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.ActivityBenchmark.StartSpan_SetAttributes_Sampled netcoreapp3.1
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.ActivityBenchmark.StartSpan_SetStatus_Sampled net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.ActivityBenchmark.StartSpan_SetStatus_Sampled net6.0
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.ActivityBenchmark.StartSpan_SetStatus_Sampled netcoreapp3.1
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.ActivityBenchmark.StartSpan_UpdateName_Sampled net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.ActivityBenchmark.StartSpan_UpdateName_Sampled net6.0
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.ActivityBenchmark.StartSpan_UpdateName_Sampled netcoreapp3.1
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.TelemetrySpanBenchmark.StartSpan net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.TelemetrySpanBenchmark.StartSpan net6.0
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.TelemetrySpanBenchmark.StartSpan netcoreapp3.1
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.TelemetrySpanBenchmark.StartSpan_AddEvent_Sampled net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.TelemetrySpanBenchmark.StartSpan_AddEvent_Sampled net6.0
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.TelemetrySpanBenchmark.StartSpan_AddEvent_Sampled netcoreapp3.1
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.TelemetrySpanBenchmark.StartSpan_GetContext_Sampled net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.TelemetrySpanBenchmark.StartSpan_GetContext_Sampled net6.0
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.TelemetrySpanBenchmark.StartSpan_GetContext_Sampled netcoreapp3.1
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.TelemetrySpanBenchmark.StartSpan_RecordException_Sampled net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.TelemetrySpanBenchmark.StartSpan_RecordException_Sampled net6.0
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.TelemetrySpanBenchmark.StartSpan_RecordException_Sampled netcoreapp3.1
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.TelemetrySpanBenchmark.StartSpan_SetAttributes_Sampled net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.TelemetrySpanBenchmark.StartSpan_SetAttributes_Sampled net6.0
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.TelemetrySpanBenchmark.StartSpan_SetAttributes_Sampled netcoreapp3.1
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.TelemetrySpanBenchmark.StartSpan_SetStatus_Sampled net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.TelemetrySpanBenchmark.StartSpan_SetStatus_Sampled net6.0
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.TelemetrySpanBenchmark.StartSpan_SetStatus_Sampled netcoreapp3.1
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.TelemetrySpanBenchmark.StartSpan_UpdateName_Sampled net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.TelemetrySpanBenchmark.StartSpan_UpdateName_Sampled net6.0
  • scenario:Benchmarks.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.TelemetrySpanBenchmark.StartSpan_UpdateName_Sampled netcoreapp3.1
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.ActivityBenchmark.StartStopWithChild net6.0
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Asm.AppSecBodyBenchmark.ObjectExtractorSimpleBody net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.CharSliceBenchmark.OptimizedCharSlice net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.CharSliceBenchmark.OptimizedCharSlice net6.0
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.CharSliceBenchmark.OptimizedCharSlice netcoreapp3.1
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.CharSliceBenchmark.OptimizedCharSliceWithPool net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.CharSliceBenchmark.OptimizedCharSliceWithPool netcoreapp3.1
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.CharSliceBenchmark.OriginalCharSlice net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.CharSliceBenchmark.OriginalCharSlice netcoreapp3.1
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.ILoggerBenchmark.EnrichedLog net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.ILoggerBenchmark.EnrichedLog netcoreapp3.1
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Iast.StringAspectsBenchmark.StringConcatBenchmark net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.RedisBenchmark.SendReceive net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.RedisBenchmark.SendReceive netcoreapp3.1
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SpanBenchmark.StartFinishScope net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SpanBenchmark.StartFinishSpan net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SpanBenchmark.StartFinishSpan net6.0
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SpanBenchmark.StartFinishTwoScopes net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SpanBenchmark.StartFinishTwoScopes netcoreapp3.1
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.TraceAnnotationsBenchmark.RunOnMethodBegin net472
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.TraceAnnotationsBenchmark.RunOnMethodBegin net6.0
  • scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.TraceAnnotationsBenchmark.RunOnMethodBegin netcoreapp3.1

@tonyredondo

tonyredondo commented Jul 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

💡 Codex Review

dd-trace-dotnet/tracer/src/Datadog.Trace.Tools.Runner/CiUtils.cs

Lines 427 to 429 in 31856d7

else if (isDotnetTestCommand)
{
Log.Debug("DatadogCoverage data collector was not added because Microsoft Testing Platform coverage is already selected.");

P2 Badge Seal global coverage when Testing Platform skips the collector
When dotnet test uses Microsoft Testing Platform coverage, this branch deliberately omits the Datadog in-proc collector. However, RequestSeal() is only invoked from that collector's TestSessionEnd, while code coverage remains enabled and TestModule still publishes the new pending/raw global-coverage artifacts. Those artifacts therefore never receive ready markers; reusing an explicit coverage directory leaves an incomplete protocol set that makes subsequent reconciliation reject both the stale and newly produced coverage files. Add an equivalent end-of-run sealing path for the Testing Platform case, or avoid creating protocol artifacts there.

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

@chatgpt-codex-connector Addressed in a79fa2d. Global coverage is now finalized from TestOptimization shutdown after active modules are closed, so Microsoft Testing Platform runs seal their output even when the Datadog in-proc collector is intentionally omitted. The finalization path is idempotent and shared with the collector. I also added unit coverage plus an MTP end-to-end test that runs twice against the same coverage directory and verifies successful reconciliation.

@chatgpt-codex-connector

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Jul 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

To use Codex here, create an environment for this repo.

@tonyredondo
tonyredondo force-pushed the fix/apms-20099-global-coverage-memory branch from eee3854 to c62a892 Compare July 23, 2026 13:41
@tonyredondo
tonyredondo marked this pull request as ready for review July 23, 2026 13:42
@tonyredondo
tonyredondo requested review from a team as code owners July 23, 2026 13:42
@tonyredondo
tonyredondo requested review from vandonr and removed request for a team July 23, 2026 13:42
@tonyredondo

tonyredondo commented Jul 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@codex review

chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]
chatgpt-codex-connector Bot reviewed Jul 23, 2026
View reviewed changes

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: c62a892b39

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

Comment thread tracer/src/Datadog.Trace/Ci/Coverage/GlobalCoverageReconciliationLease.cs Outdated
Comment thread tracer/src/Datadog.Trace/Ci/Coverage/GlobalCoverageInputReader.cs
@tonyredondo

tonyredondo commented Jul 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@codex review

@chatgpt-codex-connector

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Jul 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Chef's kiss.

Reviewed commit: 82ec03f4b9

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

@tonyredondo
tonyredondo force-pushed the fix/apms-20099-global-coverage-memory branch from 6cb87db to bfd8734 Compare July 24, 2026 08:43
@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Jul 24, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Snapshots difference summary

The following differences have been observed in committed snapshots. It is meant to help the reviewer.
The diff is simplistic, so please check some files anyway while we improve it.

@tonyredondo
tonyredondo force-pushed the fix/apms-20099-global-coverage-memory branch from 8a3be12 to 36bb32a Compare July 30, 2026 16:43
@tonyredondo
[CI Visibility] Release global coverage buffers per test
36c3f91
@tonyredondo
[CI Visibility] Isolate coverage reconciliation by test run
1df0d49
@tonyredondo
[CI Visibility] Regenerate call target definitions
707c29e
@tonyredondo
[CI Visibility] Run global coverage Windows regression tests
fef9de7
@tonyredondo
[CI Visibility] Test global coverage with packaged collector
9645b7c
@tonyredondo
[CI Visibility] Fix global coverage Windows smoke tests
cb684fb
@tonyredondo
[CI Visibility] Exercise SDK 10 coverage hook in Windows smoke test
989d5cb
@tonyredondo
[CI Visibility] Build SDK 10 coverage smoke sample
f73fb28
@tonyredondo
[CI Visibility] Align SDK 10 smoke restore
1eb89d5
@tonyredondo
[CI Visibility] Match rendered coverage diagnostics
d951e39
@tonyredondo
[CI Visibility] Avoid persistent compiler in coverage smoke test
f44a8e0
@tonyredondo
[CI Visibility] Simplify global coverage publication
41c73e2
@tonyredondo
[CI Visibility] Make coverage publication atomic
b7c3bcc
@tonyredondo
[CI Visibility] Report global coverage publication failures
dd2523a
@tonyredondo
[CI Visibility] Use run-scoped coverage fixture
7f25e16
@tonyredondo
tonyredondo force-pushed the fix/apms-20099-global-coverage-memory branch from f74fb63 to 7f25e16 Compare August 3, 2026 08:04
@tonyredondo

tonyredondo commented Aug 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@codex review

chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]
chatgpt-codex-connector Bot reviewed Aug 3, 2026
View reviewed changes

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 7f25e16a94

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

Comment thread tracer/src/Datadog.Trace/Ci/Coverage/GlobalCoverageFileCombiner.cs Outdated
Comment thread tracer/src/Datadog.Trace/Ci/Coverage/CoverageEventHandler.cs Outdated
Comment thread tracer/src/Datadog.Trace/Ci/Coverage/CoverageEventHandler.cs Outdated
@tonyredondo

tonyredondo commented Aug 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@codex review

chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]
chatgpt-codex-connector Bot reviewed Aug 3, 2026
View reviewed changes

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 620fd7f719

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

Comment thread tracer/src/Datadog.Trace/Ci/Coverage/CoverageEventHandler.cs Outdated
Comment thread tracer/src/Datadog.Trace/Ci/TestModule.cs
@tonyredondo

tonyredondo commented Aug 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@codex review

chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]
chatgpt-codex-connector Bot reviewed Aug 3, 2026
View reviewed changes

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 8a7c79749e

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

Comment thread tracer/src/Datadog.Trace/Ci/Coverage/GlobalCoverageJsonPreflightScanner.cs Outdated
@tonyredondo

tonyredondo commented Aug 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@codex review

chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]
chatgpt-codex-connector Bot reviewed Aug 3, 2026
View reviewed changes

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: f1ec06ada3

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

Comment thread tracer/src/Datadog.Trace/Ci/Coverage/GlobalCoverageJsonPreflightScanner.cs
Comment thread tracer/src/Datadog.Trace/Ci/Coverage/GlobalCoverageJsonPreflightScanner.cs
@tonyredondo

tonyredondo commented Aug 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@codex review

@chatgpt-codex-connector

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Aug 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Nice work!

Reviewed commit: 13d8b26e9c

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

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

Reviewers

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector[bot] chatgpt-codex-connector[bot] left review comments
@vandonr vandonr Awaiting requested review from vandonr vandonr is a code owner automatically assigned from DataDog/apm-idm-dotnet

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

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

area:ci-visibility

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant

@tonyredondo