ci(openfeature): stopgap pin openfeature-sdk<0.10 on latest suitespec

[vlad-scherbich]

Description

CI stopgap: upper-bound pin openfeature-sdk<0.10 on the unconstrained latest openfeature variant in tests/suitespec.yml, then regen riot locks. Fresh 3.15 lock resolution pulls 0.10+ and breaks the suite.

This is not a Tier B / 3.15 product adaptation — that stays on #20817. Complete fix: adapt the suite to the new major, then drop this pin.

Owner: FFE / OpenFeature. Merge only after owner ACK.

Closes #20817

Testing

• CI

[datadog-prod-us1-4]

 

❌ 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/opentelemetry 10/10

View more details · View in GitLab

ℹ️ Info

No other issues found (see more)

🧪 All tests passed
❄️ No new flaky tests detected

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎

_{This comment will be updated automatically if new data arrives.
🔗 Commit SHA: 763a382 | Docs | View more details | Give us feedback!}

[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.

.riot/requirements/104159c.txt                                          @DataDog/apm-python
.riot/requirements/13753fe.txt                                          @DataDog/apm-python
.riot/requirements/1bcb451.txt                                          @DataDog/apm-python
.riot/requirements/1ffb90e.txt                                          @DataDog/apm-python
.riot/requirements/8c91826.txt                                          @DataDog/apm-python
.riot/requirements/d5906dc.txt                                          @DataDog/apm-python
tests/suitespec.yml                                                     @DataDog/python-guild

[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.llmobs._integrations.google_adk -×-> ddtrace.trace  (product:llmobs -> product:tracing, score=130)
ddtrace.debugging._debugger -×-> ddtrace.trace  (product:debugging -> product:tracing, score=130)
ddtrace.internal.ci_visibility.api._base -×-> ddtrace.trace  (product:ci_visibility -> product:tracing, score=130)
ddtrace.llmobs._integrations.openai_agents -×-> 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

[pr-commenter]

Benchmarks

Benchmark execution time: 2026-10-06 18:16:38

Comparing candidate commit 763a382 in PR branch vlad/py315-pin-ffe with baseline commit 8385955 in branch main.

📊 Benchmarking dashboard

Found 0 performance improvements and 6 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 623 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 [+93.070ns; +119.457ns] or [+12.728%; +16.337%]

scenario:httppropagationextract-tracecontext_headers

• 🟥 execution_time [+2.829µs; +3.103µs] or [+8.992%; +9.862%]

scenario:iastaspectsremodule-re_expand_aspect

• 🟥 execution_time [+68.098µs; +77.539µs] or [+10.742%; +12.231%]

scenario:msgpackencoderscenario-simple_one_span

• 🟥 execution_time [+478.226ns; +536.355ns] or [+11.586%; +12.994%]

scenario:otelspan-start

• 🟥 execution_time [+1.846ms; +2.722ms] or [+7.512%; +11.078%]

scenario:recursivecomputation-shallow

• 🟥 execution_time [+52.894µs; +55.791µs] or [+7.513%; +7.924%]

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 [-741.269ns; +735.334ns] or [-7.087%; +7.031%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_1_listener

• unstable execution_time [-41.159ns; +36.331ns] or [-6.146%; +5.425%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_50_listeners

• unstable execution_time [-1871.466ns; +1988.820ns] or [-9.328%; +9.913%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_exception_listeners

• unstable execution_time [-1821.313ns; +1762.827ns] or [-9.589%; +9.281%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_listeners

• unstable execution_time [-384.146ns; +372.123ns] or [-8.915%; +8.636%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_no_args_listeners

• unstable execution_time [-240.754ns; +219.723ns] or [-8.857%; +8.083%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_with_results_1_listener

• unstable execution_time [-94.013ns; +94.434ns] or [-6.758%; +6.788%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_with_results_50_listeners

• unstable execution_time [-5192.863ns; +4124.239ns] or [-10.627%; +8.440%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_with_results_listeners

• unstable execution_time [-1101.308ns; +796.951ns] or [-10.638%; +7.698%]

scenario:packagesupdateimporteddependencies-import_many_stdlib_cached

• unstable execution_time [-49.744µs; +58.955µs] or [-8.835%; +10.471%]

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 [+2.953µs; +3.081µs] or [+20.613%; +21.500%]

scenario:iastaspects-translate_aspect

• 🟥 execution_time [+98.153µs; +103.723µs] or [+14.354%; +15.168%]

scenario:iastaspectsospath-ospathbasename_aspect

• 🟥 execution_time [+154.953µs; +161.498µs] or [+41.164%; +42.903%]

scenario:iastaspectssplit-rsplit_aspect

• 🟥 execution_time [+13.582µs; +18.819µs] or [+8.892%; +12.320%]

scenario:span-start

• 🟥 execution_time [+1.087ms; +1.525ms] or [+8.459%; +11.866%]

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

• 🟥 execution_time [+238.974ns; +273.760ns] or [+12.213%; +13.991%]

scenario:tracer-small

• 🟥 execution_time [+42.208µs; +43.349µs] or [+16.920%; +17.377%]

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-rstrip_aspect
• scenario:iastaspects-swapcase_aspect
• scenario:iastaspects-title_noaspect
• 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

[Copilot]

Note

Copilot was unable to run its full agentic suite in this review.

Copilot review overview

Review effort: Lite
Findings: 3 · 1

Open (4)

• Previously these lockfiles included a pip-compile provenance header (Python version + exact… · New
• There are two suites with the same name: openfeature but different dependency constraints. If… · New
• The constraint 'openfeature-sdk<0.10' has no lower bound, which can make CI non-reproducible… · New
• Several newly added .riot/requirements/*.txt files appear to contain identical pinned sets. If… · New

What changed in this PR

Updates OpenFeature test suite dependency constraints and refreshes Riot-generated pinned dependency sets.

Changes:

• Broadened an OpenFeature SDK constraint in the CI suite spec (<0.10).
• Regenerated Riot requirement lockfiles (removing older hashed outputs, adding new pinned sets with updated versions).
• Dropped pip-compile provenance headers from newly added Riot requirement files.

File	Description
tests/​suitespec.yml	Adjusts OpenFeature SDK version constraint used by a test suite.
.riot/​requirements/​b3bdd52.txt	Removes an older pip-compile output (Python 3.10 set).
.riot/​requirements/​460df49.txt	Removes an older pip-compile output (Python 3.9 set).
.riot/​requirements/​18a4a8d.txt	Removes an older pip-compile output (Python 3.12 set).
.riot/​requirements/​16b741f.txt	Removes an older pip-compile output (Python 3.11 set).
.riot/​requirements/​16138c7.txt	Removes an older pip-compile output (Python 3.14 set).
.riot/​requirements/​13c4b39.txt	Removes an older pip-compile output (Python 3.13 set).
.riot/​requirements/​7f9e953.txt	Adds a new pinned dependency set including openfeature-sdk==0.9.0.
.riot/​requirements/​2e674e7.txt	Adds a new pinned dependency set including openfeature-sdk==0.9.0.
.riot/​requirements/​2be2092.txt	Adds a new pinned dependency set including openfeature-sdk==0.9.0.
.riot/​requirements/​1fd5a24.txt	Adds a pinned set including openfeature-sdk==0.8.4 (appears to target an older Python/tooling combo).
.riot/​requirements/​1d5d3df.txt	Adds a new pinned dependency set including openfeature-sdk==0.9.0.
.riot/​requirements/​165690a.txt	Adds a new pinned dependency set including openfeature-sdk==0.9.0.

---

💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.

[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 2026-10-06T17:44:48.461843Z	0502aa9	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.

[Copilot]

Copilot review overview

🟢 Approval recommended

The constraint satisfies the issue acceptance criteria and the regenerated lock inventory is consistent; owner ACK remains the stated merge gate.

Review effort: Balanced
Findings: None

Resolved since last review (4)

• The constraint 'openfeature-sdk<0.10' has no lower bound, which can make CI non-reproducible…
• There are two suites with the same name: openfeature but different dependency constraints. If…
• Previously these lockfiles included a pip-compile provenance header (Python version + exact…
• Several newly added .riot/requirements/*.txt files appear to contain identical pinned sets. If…

[vlad-scherbich]

Closing: would rather wait for an actual fix to this suite.