[Tracer] (Event Grid 3/5) Add outbound end-to-end coverage

[pablomartinezbernardo]

Summary of changes

Adds end-to-end coverage for outbound Azure Event Grid instrumentation across Azure.Messaging.EventGrid and Azure.Messaging.EventGrid.Namespaces.

Reason for change

Verify that the outbound instrumentation introduced earlier in this Graphite stack produces the expected spans across supported SDK versions and APIs.

Implementation details

• Adds sample applications for both Event Grid SDKs.
• Adds Event Grid emulator configuration and Docker test wiring.
• Adds package-version matrices for the supported SDK ranges.

Test coverage

• Covers sync and async single-event, batch, and partner-channel publishing.
• Validates v0 and v1 span metadata, message IDs, batch counts, destination names, and trace-context injection.

Other details

This PR is part of a larger Graphite stack.

[pablomartinezbernardo]

Warning

This pull request is not mergeable via GitHub because a downstack PR is open. Once all requirements are satisfied, merge this PR as a stack on Graphite.
Learn more

• [Tracer] (Event Grid 5/5) Enable integration and add support metadata #8915
• [Tracer] (Event Grid 4/5) Add Azure Functions support #8914
• [Tracer] (Event Grid 3/5) Add outbound end-to-end coverage #8913 👈 (View in Graphite)
• [Tracer] (Event Grid 2/5) Register outbound SDK calltargets #8912
• [Tracer] (Event Grid 1/5) Add contract and core behavior #8911
• master

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

[pr-commenter]

Benchmarks

Benchmark execution time: 2026-10-02 13:31:09

Comparing candidate commit e74ac08 in PR branch pmartinez/event-grid-outbound-e2e with baseline commit 619db52 in branch master.

📊 Benchmarking dashboard

Found 0 performance improvements and 12 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 60 metrics, 0 unstable metrics, 75 known flaky benchmarks, 51 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

• 🟥 allocated_mem [+95 bytes; +96 bytes] or [+10.133%; +10.144%]
• 🟥 throughput [-26449.475op/s; -23387.417op/s] or [-7.450%; -6.587%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.DbCommandBenchmark.ExecuteNonQuery net6.0

• 🟥 allocated_mem [+95 bytes; +96 bytes] or [+9.750%; +9.761%]
• 🟥 throughput [-45606.248op/s; -32749.800op/s] or [-8.653%; -6.214%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.DbCommandBenchmark.ExecuteNonQuery netcoreapp3.1

• 🟥 allocated_mem [+95 bytes; +96 bytes] or [+9.830%; +9.841%]
• 🟥 throughput [-29276.277op/s; -21010.337op/s] or [-7.236%; -5.193%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.HttpClientBenchmark.SendAsync net472

• 🟥 allocated_mem [+272 bytes; +273 bytes] or [+9.374%; +9.385%]
• 🟥 throughput [-11398.802op/s; -11136.238op/s] or [-13.013%; -12.713%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.HttpClientBenchmark.SendAsync net6.0

• 🟥 allocated_mem [+199 bytes; +200 bytes] or [+9.426%; +9.438%]

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

• 🟥 allocated_mem [+199 bytes; +200 bytes] or [+7.569%; +7.581%]
• 🟥 throughput [-14814.211op/s; -13373.883op/s] or [-11.756%; -10.613%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.NLogBenchmark.EnrichedLog net472

• 🟥 throughput [-9290.966op/s; -8300.520op/s] or [-7.117%; -6.358%]

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.OpenTelemetry.InstrumentedApi.Trace.TelemetrySpanBenchmark.StartSpan net472

• 🟩 throughput [+9238.224op/s; +10074.832op/s] or [+5.196%; +5.666%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.ActivityBenchmark.StartStopWithChild net472

• 🟥 throughput [-11009.687op/s; -9639.896op/s] or [-13.054%; -11.430%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.ActivityBenchmark.StartStopWithChild net6.0

• 🟥 throughput [-10325.785op/s; -8134.151op/s] or [-8.679%; -6.837%]

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

• 🟥 throughput [-10534.915op/s; -9388.596op/s] or [-10.712%; -9.546%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.AgentWriterBenchmark.WriteAndFlushEnrichedTraces net472

• 🟥 allocated_mem [+1.573KB; +1.573KB] or [+47.789%; +47.804%]
• 🟥 execution_time [+306.572ms; +308.293ms] or [+152.132%; +152.986%]
• 🟥 throughput [-54.634op/s; -50.962op/s] or [-9.830%; -9.169%]

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

• 🟥 allocated_mem [+1.011KB; +1.011KB] or [+37.485%; +37.498%]
• 🟥 execution_time [+371.696ms; +374.679ms] or [+293.663%; +296.020%]
• 🟩 throughput [+71.501op/s; +76.571op/s] or [+9.427%; +10.096%]

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

• 🟥 allocated_mem [+1.088KB; +1.088KB] or [+40.343%; +40.355%]
• 🟥 execution_time [+398.004ms; +401.263ms] or [+352.219%; +355.103%]

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

• 🟥 allocated_mem [+4.758KB; +4.758KB] or [+100.159%; +100.174%]
• 🟥 throughput [-60589.415op/s; -60169.498op/s] or [-47.142%; -46.815%]

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

• 🟥 allocated_mem [+3.880KB; +3.880KB] or [+82.058%; +82.072%]
• 🟩 execution_time [-15.554ms; -11.391ms] or [-7.264%; -5.320%]
• 🟥 throughput [-61496.327op/s; -58739.302op/s] or [-44.889%; -42.876%]

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

• 🟥 allocated_mem [+4.608KB; +4.608KB] or [+99.641%; +99.654%]
• 🟥 throughput [-48896.929op/s; -46651.123op/s] or [-44.208%; -42.178%]

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

• 🟥 allocated_mem [+1.380KB; +1.380KB] or [+111.648%; +111.662%]
• 🟥 throughput [-314923.212op/s; -308334.142op/s] or [-32.155%; -31.482%]

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

• 🟥 allocated_mem [+543 bytes; +544 bytes] or [+44.437%; +44.446%]
• 🟩 execution_time [-25.985ms; -21.126ms] or [-11.588%; -9.421%]
• 🟥 throughput [-99121.914op/s; -76062.407op/s] or [-10.589%; -8.126%]

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

• 🟥 allocated_mem [+1.344KB; +1.344KB] or [+111.253%; +111.267%]
• 🟥 throughput [-180742.705op/s; -164802.577op/s] or [-25.969%; -23.679%]

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

• 🟥 allocated_mem [+3.378KB; +3.378KB] or [+89.003%; +89.017%]
• 🟥 throughput [-73428.647op/s; -72661.784op/s] or [-49.417%; -48.901%]

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

• 🟥 allocated_mem [+3.336KB; +3.336KB] or [+88.150%; +88.161%]
• 🟥 throughput [-75221.651op/s; -72346.600op/s] or [-47.862%; -46.033%]

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

• 🟥 allocated_mem [+3.264KB; +3.264KB] or [+88.493%; +88.506%]
• 🟥 throughput [-57418.191op/s; -54787.945op/s] or [-45.741%; -43.646%]

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

• 🟩 throughput [+224207.180op/s; +246805.796op/s] or [+7.476%; +8.230%]

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

• 🟩 execution_time [-17.438ms; -12.677ms] or [-8.038%; -5.844%]

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

• 🟩 allocated_mem [-13.759KB; -13.757KB] or [-42.326%; -42.318%]
• 🟥 execution_time [+299.336ms; +300.574ms] or [+149.568%; +150.187%]
• 🟩 throughput [+987.220op/s; +1010.312op/s] or [+10.904%; +11.159%]

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

• 🟩 allocated_mem [-13.722KB; -13.718KB] or [-42.341%; -42.329%]
• 🟥 execution_time [+300.348ms; +303.457ms] or [+151.466%; +153.034%]
• 🟩 throughput [+2169.686op/s; +2389.392op/s] or [+16.595%; +18.275%]

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

• 🟩 allocated_mem [-13.722KB; -13.718KB] or [-42.341%; -42.329%]
• 🟥 execution_time [+300.560ms; +302.963ms] or [+151.399%; +152.609%]
• 🟩 throughput [+1807.026op/s; +1936.952op/s] or [+17.446%; +18.700%]

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

• 🟥 execution_time [+296.662ms; +298.170ms] or [+145.709%; +146.449%]
• 🟩 throughput [+547.151op/s; +556.794op/s] or [+14.505%; +14.761%]

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

• 🟥 execution_time [+299.476ms; +301.367ms] or [+146.403%; +147.327%]
• 🟩 throughput [+2768.769op/s; +2818.135op/s] or [+40.225%; +40.942%]

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

• 🟥 execution_time [+301.627ms; +304.148ms] or [+150.753%; +152.013%]
• 🟩 throughput [+1389.332op/s; +1425.540op/s] or [+27.577%; +28.296%]

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

• 🟩 execution_time [-145.043µs; -140.581µs] or [-29.779%; -28.863%]
• 🟩 throughput [+837.207op/s; +867.980op/s] or [+40.776%; +42.275%]

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

• 🟩 execution_time [-130.464µs; -103.683µs] or [-29.922%; -23.780%]
• 🟩 throughput [+774.266op/s; +898.860op/s] or [+33.662%; +39.079%]

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

• 🟩 execution_time [-137.579µs; -115.469µs] or [-29.477%; -24.740%]
• 🟩 throughput [+731.412op/s; +816.326op/s] or [+33.763%; +37.683%]

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

• 🟩 execution_time [-126.685µs; -121.995µs] or [-34.204%; -32.938%]
• 🟩 throughput [+1337.522op/s; +1395.536op/s] or [+49.536%; +51.684%]

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

• 🟩 execution_time [-90.753µs; -66.242µs] or [-28.973%; -21.148%]
• 🟩 throughput [+947.770op/s; +1179.008op/s] or [+29.545%; +36.753%]

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

• 🟩 execution_time [-136.339µs; -113.961µs] or [-37.297%; -31.175%]
• 🟩 throughput [+1305.672op/s; +1442.050op/s] or [+46.855%; +51.749%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.AspNetCoreBenchmark.SendRequest net472

• 🟥 execution_time [+299.733ms; +300.411ms] or [+149.597%; +149.936%]

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

• 🟥 execution_time [+407.618ms; +416.290ms] or [+442.894%; +452.317%]

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

• unstable execution_time [+196.269ms; +262.340ms] or [+149.025%; +199.193%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.CIVisibilityProtocolWriterBenchmark.WriteAndFlushEnrichedTraces net472

• unstable execution_time [+322.292ms; +370.690ms] or [+148.187%; +170.439%]
• 🟥 throughput [-575.264op/s; -521.951op/s] or [-52.125%; -47.294%]

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

• unstable execution_time [+205.650ms; +338.909ms] or [+87.640%; +144.429%]
• 🟥 throughput [-663.526op/s; -580.035op/s] or [-44.257%; -38.689%]

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

• 🟥 execution_time [+340.110ms; +352.869ms] or [+203.425%; +211.057%]
• 🟥 throughput [-438.895op/s; -401.614op/s] or [-30.560%; -27.964%]

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

• 🟩 execution_time [-167.337µs; -125.009µs] or [-8.477%; -6.332%]
• 🟩 throughput [+35.379op/s; +47.404op/s] or [+6.984%; +9.358%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.ElasticsearchBenchmark.CallElasticsearch net472

• 🟥 allocated_mem [+96 bytes; +97 bytes] or [+12.092%; +12.103%]
• 🟥 execution_time [+303.022ms; +304.720ms] or [+152.596%; +153.451%]

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

• 🟥 allocated_mem [+95 bytes; +96 bytes] or [+12.114%; +12.124%]
• 🟥 execution_time [+303.244ms; +305.604ms] or [+151.956%; +153.139%]

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

• 🟥 allocated_mem [+95 bytes; +96 bytes] or [+12.114%; +12.124%]
• 🟥 execution_time [+301.993ms; +307.077ms] or [+151.709%; +154.263%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.ElasticsearchBenchmark.CallElasticsearchAsync net472

• 🟥 allocated_mem [+95 bytes; +96 bytes] or [+11.165%; +11.177%]
• 🟥 execution_time [+301.946ms; +303.152ms] or [+151.627%; +152.233%]
• 🟥 throughput [-17312.102op/s; -15247.767op/s] or [-5.800%; -5.108%]

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

• 🟥 allocated_mem [+95 bytes; +96 bytes] or [+12.493%; +12.506%]
• 🟥 execution_time [+298.491ms; +307.424ms] or [+147.591%; +152.008%]
• 🟥 throughput [-61391.858op/s; -47170.851op/s] or [-9.891%; -7.600%]

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

• 🟥 allocated_mem [+95 bytes; +96 bytes] or [+11.422%; +11.434%]
• 🟥 execution_time [+302.957ms; +307.132ms] or [+153.552%; +155.668%]
• 🟥 throughput [-40488.244op/s; -31508.860op/s] or [-8.743%; -6.804%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.GraphQLBenchmark.ExecuteAsync net472

• 🟥 allocated_mem [+96 bytes; +97 bytes] or [+11.197%; +11.208%]
• 🟥 execution_time [+300.154ms; +302.425ms] or [+150.650%; +151.790%]
• 🟥 throughput [-37332.378op/s; -35387.704op/s] or [-9.685%; -9.180%]

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

• 🟥 allocated_mem [+95 bytes; +96 bytes] or [+10.618%; +10.631%]
• 🟥 execution_time [+303.443ms; +322.226ms] or [+151.239%; +160.600%]

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

• 🟥 allocated_mem [+95 bytes; +96 bytes] or [+10.618%; +10.631%]
• 🟥 execution_time [+298.190ms; +300.779ms] or [+148.347%; +149.635%]
• 🟥 throughput [-28036.928op/s; -21896.541op/s] or [-6.636%; -5.183%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.ILoggerBenchmark.EnrichedLog net472

• 🟥 allocated_mem [+96 bytes; +97 bytes] or [+6.002%; +6.011%]
• 🟥 throughput [-19019.293op/s; -17573.932op/s] or [-7.648%; -7.067%]

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

• 🟥 allocated_mem [+95 bytes; +96 bytes] or [+5.627%; +5.636%]
• 🟩 execution_time [-16.634ms; -12.980ms] or [-7.735%; -6.036%]

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

• 🟥 allocated_mem [+95 bytes; +96 bytes] or [+5.605%; +5.617%]

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

• unstable execution_time [+18.424µs; +62.279µs] or [+4.551%; +15.383%]

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

• 🟩 allocated_mem [-19.860KB; -19.839KB] or [-7.245%; -7.237%]
• unstable execution_time [-20.091µs; +36.670µs] or [-3.971%; +7.248%]

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

• unstable execution_time [-55.911µs; +6.454µs] or [-9.689%; +1.118%]

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

• unstable execution_time [+13.513µs; +19.337µs] or [+31.942%; +45.707%]
• 🟥 throughput [-7432.384op/s; -5443.933op/s] or [-31.288%; -22.917%]

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

• unstable execution_time [-13.135µs; -5.063µs] or [-20.379%; -7.854%]
• unstable throughput [+1221.899op/s; +2973.264op/s] or [+7.497%; +18.242%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Log4netBenchmark.EnrichedLog net472

• 🟥 execution_time [+303.639ms; +305.282ms] or [+153.476%; +154.307%]

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

• 🟥 execution_time [+303.692ms; +307.087ms] or [+154.578%; +156.306%]

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

• 🟥 execution_time [+295.901ms; +298.703ms] or [+148.135%; +149.538%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.RedisBenchmark.SendReceive net472

• 🟥 allocated_mem [+95 bytes; +96 bytes] or [+9.197%; +9.208%]
• 🟥 throughput [-41465.052op/s; -37653.098op/s] or [-11.479%; -10.423%]

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

• 🟥 allocated_mem [+95 bytes; +96 bytes] or [+9.226%; +9.238%]
• 🟥 throughput [-36085.652op/s; -32866.013op/s] or [-6.830%; -6.221%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.RedisBenchmark.SendReceive netcoreapp3.1

• 🟥 allocated_mem [+95 bytes; +96 bytes] or [+9.226%; +9.238%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SerilogBenchmark.EnrichedLog net472

• 🟥 execution_time [+295.775ms; +298.078ms] or [+147.417%; +148.565%]

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

• 🟥 allocated_mem [+96 bytes; +96 bytes] or [+6.000%; +6.010%]
• 🟥 execution_time [+299.984ms; +306.112ms] or [+150.637%; +153.715%]

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

• 🟥 allocated_mem [+95 bytes; +96 bytes] or [+5.819%; +5.828%]
• 🟥 execution_time [+301.880ms; +304.131ms] or [+153.094%; +154.236%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SingleSpanAspNetCoreBenchmark.SingleSpanAspNetCore net472

• 🟥 execution_time [+299.186ms; +300.003ms] or [+149.235%; +149.643%]
• 🟩 throughput [+61198031.361op/s; +61469089.381op/s] or [+44.568%; +44.766%]

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

• unstable execution_time [+337.714ms; +398.535ms] or [+420.008%; +495.649%]

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

• 🟥 execution_time [+299.893ms; +300.907ms] or [+149.580%; +150.086%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SpanBenchmark.StartFinishScope net472

• 🟥 allocated_mem [+31 bytes; +32 bytes] or [+5.244%; +5.256%]
• 🟥 throughput [-66009.738op/s; -62386.439op/s] or [-7.367%; -6.962%]

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

• 🟩 throughput [+58615.041op/s; +66014.813op/s] or [+5.473%; +6.164%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SpanBenchmark.StartFinishSpan net472

• 🟥 allocated_mem [+31 bytes; +32 bytes] or [+6.037%; +6.047%]
• 🟥 throughput [-122209.729op/s; -115774.568op/s] or [-11.187%; -10.598%]

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

• 🟥 allocated_mem [+31 bytes; +32 bytes] or [+6.057%; +6.065%]

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

• 🟥 allocated_mem [+31 bytes; +32 bytes] or [+6.059%; +6.069%]

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

• 🟩 throughput [+33563.897op/s; +37799.759op/s] or [+6.095%; +6.864%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.TraceAnnotationsBenchmark.RunOnMethodBegin net472

• 🟥 allocated_mem [+95 bytes; +96 bytes] or [+15.733%; +15.745%]
• 🟥 throughput [-68921.033op/s; -65681.547op/s] or [-10.087%; -9.613%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.TraceAnnotationsBenchmark.RunOnMethodBegin net6.0

• 🟥 allocated_mem [+95 bytes; +96 bytes] or [+14.810%; +14.823%]

scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.TraceAnnotationsBenchmark.RunOnMethodBegin netcoreapp3.1

• 🟥 allocated_mem [+95 bytes; +96 bytes] or [+14.810%; +14.821%]
• 🟥 throughput [-61649.082op/s; -46946.413op/s] or [-8.608%; -6.555%]

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 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.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 net6.0
• scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.CharSliceBenchmark.OptimizedCharSliceWithPool netcoreapp3.1
• scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.CharSliceBenchmark.OriginalCharSlice net472
• scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.CharSliceBenchmark.OriginalCharSlice netcoreapp3.1
• scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.Iast.StringAspectsBenchmark.StringConcatBenchmark net472
• scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SpanBenchmark.StartFinishScope netcoreapp3.1
• scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SpanBenchmark.StartFinishTwoScopes net472
• scenario:Benchmarks.Trace.SpanBenchmark.StartFinishTwoScopes netcoreapp3.1

[dd-trace-dotnet-ci-bot]

Execution-Time Benchmarks Report ⏱️

Execution-time results for samples comparing This PR (8913) and master.

✅ No regressions detected

📄 View the full report (charts + all metrics) →

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 5e098c35ef

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Codex has been enabled to automatically 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 👍.

When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".

[vandonr]

should we add those to the macOS slnf as well ? if there is no major incompatibility, we should.

[pablomartinezbernardo]

Correct, added!

[vandonr]

what's usually done in other tests is that the sample app runs once and does all the possible operations (see sql tests for instance, they send a bunch of requests with all instrumented methods). Ten we have one single snapshot that contains all spans.

IDK if your way is better or worse. The upside of having everything at once is that the setup cost is only paid once (tests probably run faster, which is a significant factor given the current situation), the sample code is simpler, and there is no hidden param.
The upside I see to your approach is that assertions can be more precise and if something breaks, the error message is clearer.

[pablomartinezbernardo]

Regarding the hidden param: While it is true that the test needs to understand how this parameter works, tests always need to know how the sample app works. As for simplicity, I think having switch cases makes things easier to understand even if more verbose.

As for startup time, it is true that fewer processes would cause less overhead, but I'm not sure how relevant that is in the overall time. Let's leave this open for others to chime in!

[andrewlock]

My inclination is towards @vandonr. Startup/shutdown costs is a big part of the runtime in general, and also one of the main sources of flakiness. I would personally be strongly inclined to follow the same standard pattern, and use a snapshot. The main thing to get right with that is that you have a Stable order of spans, based on resources names etc (you can customize that). You can also wrap each event Type with a concrete-named manual span if working out "which span is which" is the issue.

The main time we would choose to have a "test mode" is to reduce the number of samples we create. e.g. we have a Samples.Console which is explicitly running many different types of test, to reduce the build times associated with building samples, but it seems like that's very different to this scenario

[pablomartinezbernardo]

Sounds good, done!

[vandonr]

cool thanks