ci: declare FLAKY_BENCHMARKS_REGEX for macrobenchmarks

[igoragoli]

Description

• Declare an empty FLAKY_BENCHMARKS_REGEX in the .macrobenchmarks template.
  • A scenario matching it still runs and reports, but doesn't fail the gate.
• Link it and the existing micro declaration to Flaky Benchmarks Monitoring, value untouched.
• Remove the outdated "not declared yet" note from microbenchmarks.md.

APMSP-3925 Onboard dd-trace-* and nginx-datadog to benchmark stability monitoring

Testing

YAML parses. Runs are unchanged since the declared value is empty.

Risks

None

Additional Notes

[datadog-datadog-prod-us1]

 

❌ Errors

Your PR has failed checks. Please review the issues below and take necessary action before merging.

🚦 1 Pipeline job failed

DataDog/apm-reliability/dd-trace-py | contrib/celery 5/7 — 🔄 Retry may pass, looks flaky

View more details · View in GitLab

ℹ️ Info

No other issues found (see more)

🧪 All tests passed
❄️ No new flaky tests detected

🔄 Datadog retried 3 tests - 3 passed on retry

🚧 8 tests that failed were ignored due to quarantine

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎

_{This comment will be updated automatically if new data arrives.
🔗 Commit SHA: cd0ed64 | Docs | View more details | Give us feedback!}

[cit-pr-commenter-54b7da]

Dependency direction analysis

⚠️ Existing dependency direction violations

There are 201 dependency direction violations that already exist on the base branch and have not been changed by this PR.

Show existing violations (showing 5 of 201 highest severity)

ddtrace.internal.tracemethods -×-> ddtrace.trace  (internal-core -> product:tracing, score=132)
ddtrace.debugging._exception.replay -×-> ddtrace.trace  (product:debugging -> product:tracing, score=130)
ddtrace.profiling.collector.pytorch -×-> ddtrace.trace  (product:profiling -> product:tracing, score=130)
ddtrace.profiling.scheduler -×-> ddtrace.trace  (product:profiling -> product:tracing, score=130)
ddtrace.llmobs._integrations.mcp -×-> ddtrace.trace  (product:llmobs -> product:tracing, score=130)

To see all violations, download the layers-base.json and layers-pr.json artifacts from this CI job and run:

uv run --script scripts/import-analysis/layers.py compare layers-base.json layers-pr.json

[cit-pr-commenter-54b7da]

Circular import analysis

⚠️ Existing circular imports

There are 1 circular imports that already exist on the base branch and have not been changed by this PR.

ddtrace.errortracking._handled_exceptions.bytecode_injector -> ddtrace.errortracking._handled_exceptions.callbacks -> ddtrace.errortracking._handled_exceptions.collector -> ddtrace.errortracking._handled_exceptions.bytecode_reporting -> ddtrace.errortracking._handled_exceptions.bytecode_injector

[cit-pr-commenter-54b7da]

Codeowners resolved as

Resolved from the full PR diff against main using the target branch CODEOWNERS file.
CODEOWNERS team requests not listed below are not required by the current file set.

.gitlab/benchmarks/macrobenchmarks.yml                                  @DataDog/apm-ecosystems-performance @DataDog/apm-core-python
.gitlab/benchmarks/microbenchmarks.md                                   @DataDog/apm-ecosystems-performance @DataDog/apm-core-python
.gitlab/benchmarks/microbenchmarks.yml                                  @DataDog/apm-ecosystems-performance @DataDog/apm-core-python

[pr-commenter]

Benchmarks

Benchmark execution time: 2026-10-07 09:44:20

Comparing candidate commit cd0ed64 in PR branch augusto/flaky-benchmarks-monitoring-docs with baseline commit eaf46b1 in branch main.

📊 Benchmarking dashboard

Found 4 performance improvements and 9 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 577 metrics, 10 unstable metrics, 7 known flaky benchmarks, 17 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:httppropagationextract-empty_headers

• 🟩 execution_time [-70.994ns; -55.052ns] or [-9.582%; -7.431%]

scenario:httppropagationextract-full_t_id_datadog_headers

• 🟥 execution_time [+1.589µs; +1.687µs] or [+10.829%; +11.498%]

scenario:httppropagationextract-none_propagation_style

• 🟩 execution_time [-66.874ns; -55.120ns] or [-8.716%; -7.184%]

scenario:httppropagationextract-wsgi_empty_headers

• 🟩 execution_time [-70.434ns; -57.030ns] or [-9.511%; -7.701%]

scenario:httppropagationextract-wsgi_invalid_span_id_header

• 🟩 execution_time [-72.013ns; -59.347ns] or [-9.759%; -8.043%]

scenario:iastaspects-add_aspect

• 🟥 execution_time [+7.101µs; +8.529µs] or [+8.338%; +10.015%]

scenario:iastaspects-format_map_noaspect

• 🟥 execution_time [+63.830µs; +69.084µs] or [+17.532%; +18.975%]

scenario:iastaspects-title_aspect

• 🟥 execution_time [+78.037µs; +83.051µs] or [+28.012%; +29.812%]

scenario:iastaspectsremodule-re_expand_aspect

• 🟥 execution_time [+94.566µs; +104.810µs] or [+14.634%; +16.219%]

scenario:msgpackencoderscenario-simple_one_span

• 🟥 execution_time [+559.003ns; +620.497ns] or [+13.631%; +15.130%]

scenario:openfeatureflagevaluation-hook-enqueue-typical

• 🟥 execution_time [+1.897µs; +2.080µs] or [+8.834%; +9.689%]

scenario:recursivecomputation-shallow

• 🟥 execution_time [+60.082µs; +63.872µs] or [+8.593%; +9.135%]

scenario:span-start-finish-telemetry

• 🟥 execution_time [+4.833ms; +5.038ms] or [+11.696%; +12.193%]

Unstable benchmarks

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

scenario:coreapiscenario-context_with_data_listeners

• unstable execution_time [-598.131ns; +869.130ns] or [-5.756%; +8.363%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_1_listener

• unstable execution_time [-43.040ns; +36.174ns] or [-6.434%; +5.407%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_50_listeners

• unstable execution_time [-1664.633ns; +2172.958ns] or [-8.383%; +10.942%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_exception_listeners

• unstable execution_time [-1557.756ns; +2111.769ns] or [-8.170%; +11.075%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_listeners

• unstable execution_time [-318.366ns; +445.310ns] or [-7.482%; +10.466%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_no_args_listeners

• unstable execution_time [-186.103ns; +273.043ns] or [-6.994%; +10.261%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_with_results_1_listener

• unstable execution_time [-138.554ns; +45.692ns] or [-9.985%; +3.293%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_with_results_50_listeners

• unstable execution_time [-4508.391ns; +4696.095ns] or [-9.454%; +9.848%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_with_results_listeners

• unstable execution_time [-946.231ns; +923.998ns] or [-9.313%; +9.094%]

scenario:packagesupdateimporteddependencies-import_many_stdlib_cached

• unstable execution_time [-52.783µs; +56.444µs] or [-9.373%; +10.023%]

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:httppropagationinject-ids_only

• 🟥 execution_time [+3.415µs; +3.539µs] or [+24.402%; +25.283%]

scenario:iastaspects-rstrip_aspect

• 🟥 execution_time [+106.666µs; +116.400µs] or [+30.704%; +33.506%]

scenario:iastaspectsospath-ospathbasename_aspect

• 🟥 execution_time [+142.119µs; +146.781µs] or [+36.929%; +38.141%]

scenario:iastaspectssplit-rsplit_aspect

• 🟥 execution_time [+24.389µs; +28.207µs] or [+15.607%; +18.050%]

scenario:span-start

• 🟥 execution_time [+1.055ms; +1.499ms] or [+8.427%; +11.978%]

scenario:telemetryaddmetric-1-count-metric-1-times

• 🟥 execution_time [+171.004ns; +206.928ns] or [+8.638%; +10.452%]

scenario:tracer-small

• 🟥 execution_time [+49.295µs; +50.263µs] or [+20.211%; +20.608%]

Known flaky benchmarks without significant changes:

• scenario:errortrackingflasksqli-baseline
• scenario:flasksimple-iast-get
• scenario:iastaspects-casefold_aspect
• scenario:iastaspects-casefold_noaspect
• scenario:iastaspects-index_aspect
• scenario:iastaspects-ljust_noaspect
• scenario:iastaspects-lower_aspect
• scenario:iastaspects-replace_aspect
• scenario:iastaspects-swapcase_aspect
• scenario:iastaspects-title_noaspect
• scenario:iastaspects-translate_aspect
• scenario:iastaspects-translate_noaspect
• scenario:iastaspects-upper_noaspect
• scenario:packagespackageforrootmodulemapping-cache_off
• scenario:packagespackageforrootmodulemapping-cache_on
• scenario:sethttpmeta-all-enabled
• scenario:telemetryaddmetric-record-100-metrics

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	✅ Completed 2026-10-07T09:09:34.028497Z	cd0ed64	New commits
🔒 Security Review	✅ Completed 2026-10-07T09:10:29.495079Z	cd0ed64	New commits

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" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 9649f20d13

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".