Skip to content

Conversation

@morrisonlevi
Copy link
Collaborator

Description

This replaces the ThinStr defined in this module with the one that is in libdd-profiling instead. Note that the one in libdd-profiling was a copy + refactor of this one, which is why the migration is so easy.

Reviewer checklist

  • Test coverage seems ok.
  • Appropriate labels assigned.

@morrisonlevi morrisonlevi added the profiling Relates to the Continuous Profiler label Feb 7, 2026
@datadog-official
Copy link

datadog-official bot commented Feb 7, 2026

⚠️ Tests

Fix all issues with Cursor

⚠️ Warnings

🧪 1026 Tests failed

    ❄️ Known flaky: telemetry data is received() from com.datadog.appsec.php.integration.TelemetryTests (Fix with Cursor)

testSearchPhpBinaries from integration.DDTrace\Tests\Integration\PHPInstallerTest (Datadog) (Fix with Cursor)
DDTrace\Tests\Integration\PHPInstallerTest::testSearchPhpBinaries
Test code or tested code printed unexpected output: Searching for available php binaries, this operation might take a while.

    testSimplePushAndProcess from laravel-58-test.DDTrace\Tests\Integrations\Laravel\V5_8\QueueTest (Fix with Cursor)

View all

ℹ️ Info

❄️ No new flaky tests detected

This comment will be updated automatically if new data arrives.
🔗 Commit SHA: 30e16e1 | Docs | Datadog PR Page | Was this helpful? Give us feedback!

@pr-commenter
Copy link

pr-commenter bot commented Feb 7, 2026

Benchmarks [ profiler ]

Benchmark execution time: 2026-02-10 17:34:39

Comparing candidate commit 30e16e1 in PR branch levi/thin-str-cleanup with baseline commit cec436d in branch master.

Found 2 performance improvements and 0 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 26 metrics, 8 unstable metrics.

scenario:walk_stack/50

  • 🟩 wall_time [-792.848ns; -779.772ns] or [-4.879%; -4.798%]

scenario:walk_stack/99

  • 🟩 wall_time [-685.043ns; -676.939ns] or [-4.245%; -4.195%]

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Feb 9, 2026

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 62.21%. Comparing base (cec436d) to head (30e16e1).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #3631      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   62.20%   62.21%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         141      141              
  Lines       13387    13387              
  Branches     1753     1753              
==========================================
+ Hits         8327     8329       +2     
+ Misses       4263     4260       -3     
- Partials      797      798       +1     

see 1 file with indirect coverage changes


Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update cec436d...30e16e1. Read the comment docs.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

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

Labels

profiling Relates to the Continuous Profiler tracing

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants