Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Bump libdatadog version to 5.0.0 in preparation for release #266

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 3, 2023

Conversation

ivoanjo
Copy link
Member

@ivoanjo ivoanjo commented Oct 3, 2023

What does this PR do?

This PR bumps the libdatadog version to 5.0.0. This PR looks a bit different from previous PRs to bump libdatadog version (here's the 4.0.0 PR as an example) because in this PR we've centralized the version on the single Cargo.toml file.

Furthermore, we're going from 4.0.0 to 5.0.0 because there were a number of backwards-incompatible changes to the profiling APIs.

Motivation:

Release libdatadog 5.0.0.

Additional Notes:

If I haven't missed anything, the backwards incompatible API changes were the following:

  • The value of the end_timestamp_ns label is now provided as a regular argument to ddog_prof_Profile_add
  • The libdatadog 5 serializer outputs compressed pprof files
  • The exporter has a new API that takes two lists, a list of files to compress and a list of files to assume are compressed when exporting
  • The libdatadog 5 serializer now resets profiles as part of serializing them
  • The ddog_prof_Profile_new now returns a result structure

How to test the change?

I've tested the libdatadog 5 releases using the Ruby profiler, see DataDog/dd-trace-rb#3169 for my draft PR.

For Reviewers

  • If this PR touches code that signs or publishes builds or packages, or handles credentials of any kind, I've requested a review from @DataDog/security-design-and-guidance.
  • This PR doesn't touch any of that.

**What does this PR do?**

This PR bumps the libdatadog version to 5.0.0. This PR looks a bit
different from previous PRs to bump libdatadog version
[(here's the 4.0.0 PR as an example)](#236)
because in [this PR](#247)
we've centralized the version on the single `Cargo.toml` file.

Furthermore, we're going from 4.0.0 to 5.0.0 because there were a number
of backwards-incompatible changes to the profiling APIs.

**Motivation:**

Release libdatadog 5.5.0.

**Additional Notes:**

If I haven't missed anything, the backwards incompatible API changes
were the following:

* The value of the `end_timestamp_ns` label is now provided as a
  regular argument to `ddog_prof_Profile_add`
* The libdatadog 5 serializer outputs compressed pprof files
* The exporter has a new API that takes two lists, a list of
  files to compress and a list of files to assume are compressed when
  exporting
* The libdatadog 5 serializer now resets profiles as part of serializing them
* The `ddog_prof_Profile_new` now returns a result structure

**How to test the change?**

I've tested the libdatadog 5 releases using the Ruby profiler, see
DataDog/dd-trace-rb#3169 for my draft PR.
@ivoanjo ivoanjo requested a review from a team as a code owner October 3, 2023 14:45
Copy link
Contributor

@morrisonlevi morrisonlevi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

There's a failing test because the serverless's protos are out of sync again. I don't consider this a blocker, personally.

@ivoanjo
Copy link
Member Author

ivoanjo commented Oct 3, 2023

There's a failing test because the serverless's protos are out of sync again. I don't consider this a blocker, personally.

👍 Yeah, I'll drop a note to the serverless folks to look into it, but indeed that part of the code is not part of the binary releases for profiling so I agree it doesn't make sense to block on it.

@ivoanjo ivoanjo merged commit 7b8a01e into main Oct 3, 2023
19 of 20 checks passed
@ivoanjo ivoanjo deleted the ivoanjo/release-libdatadog-5 branch October 3, 2023 16:36
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants