feat(library-config-ffi): expose OTel thread-context metadata opt-in by y9v · Pull Request #2622 · DataDog/libdatadog

y9v · 2026-10-02T15:30:31Z

What does this PR do?

This PR adds ddog_tracer_metadata_include_otel_therad_context function, allowing C callers to include thread-context discovery metadata when storing a tracer-metadata builder.

When metadata is absent, the operation configures the tlsdesc_v1_dev schema and a key map containing datadog.local_root_span_id. Existing metadata is preserved, so repeated calls are safe.

Motivation

The agent currently cannot discover the Ruby TLS without the thread-context metadata in the OTel process context.

libdatadog already supports publishing this metadata, but the C API lacks a way to configure it. Exposing the operation lets SDKs use the existing publisher instead of maintaining their own publication workaround.

Additional Notes

The operation updates the builder; publication happens when ddog_tracer_metadata_store is called.

How to test the change?

cargo nextest run -p libdd-library-config --features otel-thread-ctx,process-context-reader
cargo nextest run -p libdd-library-config-ffi
cargo nextest run -p libdd-library-config-ffi --no-default-features
cargo test -p libdd-library-config-ffi --doc
cargo ffi-tes

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-10-02T15:30:50Z

Codex Review Summary

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

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	✅ Completed 2026-10-02T15:34:08.985290Z	`2db36ac`	PR opened
🔒 Security Review	✅ Completed 2026-10-02T15:35:49.655746Z	`2db36ac`	PR opened

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.

pr-commenter · 2026-10-02T15:30:50Z

Benchmarks

Comparison

Benchmark execution time: 2026-10-07 09:30:20

Comparing candidate commit b8d37f1 in PR branch feat/otel-thread-context-metadata-ffi with baseline commit 24680da in branch main.

📊 Benchmarking dashboard

Found 1 performance improvements and 0 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 161 metrics, 0 unstable metrics.

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:vec_map/as_deduped_map/needs_dedup_1_in_2/8

🟩 execution_time [-23.070ns; -22.793ns] or [-4.767%; -4.710%]

Benchmark execution time: 2026-10-07 09:28:46

Comparing candidate commit b8d37f1 in PR branch feat/otel-thread-context-metadata-ffi with baseline commit 24680da in branch main.

📊 Benchmarking dashboard

Found 0 performance improvements and 0 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 92 metrics, 0 unstable metrics.

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 ----------------------------------'

Benchmark execution time: 2026-10-07 09:26:31

Comparing candidate commit b8d37f1 in PR branch feat/otel-thread-context-metadata-ffi with baseline commit 24680da in branch main.

📊 Benchmarking dashboard

Found 0 performance improvements and 0 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 89 metrics, 10 unstable metrics.

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 ----------------------------------'

Unstable benchmarks

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

scenario:datadog_sample_span/parent_not_sampled_short_circuit/allocated_bytes

unstable execution_time [-0.000ns; +0.000ns] or [+555.350%; -555.554%]

scenario:datadog_sample_span/parent_sampled_short_circuit/allocated_bytes

unstable execution_time [-0.000ns; +0.000ns] or [+555.927%; -555.825%]

scenario:glob_matcher/ascii_case_insensitive_match/allocated_bytes

unstable execution_time [-0.000ns; +0.000ns] or [+557.527%; -556.579%]

scenario:glob_matcher/ascii_exact_match/allocated_bytes

unstable execution_time [-0.000ns; +0.000ns] or [+555.735%; -555.735%]

scenario:glob_matcher/ascii_exact_miss/allocated_bytes

unstable execution_time [-0.000ns; +0.000ns] or [+560.642%; -558.051%]

scenario:glob_matcher/ascii_wildcard_backtrack_match/allocated_bytes

unstable execution_time [-0.000ns; +0.000ns] or [+554.961%; -555.370%]

scenario:glob_matcher/ascii_wildcard_heavy_backtrack/allocated_bytes

unstable execution_time [-0.000ns; +0.000ns] or [+553.167%; -554.528%]

scenario:glob_matcher/ascii_wildcard_question_match/allocated_bytes

unstable execution_time [-0.000ns; +0.000ns] or [+554.961%; -555.370%]

scenario:glob_matcher/ascii_wildcard_star_match/allocated_bytes

unstable execution_time [-0.000ns; +0.000ns] or [+544.930%; -550.680%]

scenario:glob_matcher/star_short_circuit/allocated_bytes

unstable execution_time [-0.000ns; +0.000ns] or [+562.199%; -558.788%]

Candidate

Omitted due to size.

Baseline

Omitted due to size.

github-actions · 2026-10-02T15:32:51Z

📚 Documentation Check Results

⚠️ 864 documentation warning(s) found

📦 `libdd-library-config-ffi` - 588 warning(s)

📦 `libdd-library-config` - 276 warning(s)

Updated: 2026-10-07 09:59:14 UTC | Commit: a4c617d | missing-docs job results

github-actions · 2026-10-02T15:33:32Z

🔒 Cargo Deny Results

⚠️ 1 issue(s) found, showing only errors (advisories, bans, sources)

📦 `libdd-library-config-ffi` - 1 error(s)

Show output

error[vulnerability]: TLS 1.3 handshake messages incorrectly accepted across encryption level boundaries
    ┌─ /home/runner/work/libdatadog/libdatadog/Cargo.lock:132:1
    │
132 │ rustls 0.23.37 registry+https://github.com/rust-lang/crates.io-index
    │ ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ security vulnerability detected
    │
    ├ ID: RUSTSEC-2026-0285
    ├ Advisory: https://rustsec.org/advisories/RUSTSEC-2026-0285
    ├ Rustls accepted TLS 1.3 handshake messages sent at the wrong encryption level
      when they followed a key-changing message in the same record. For example,
      a plaintext `EncryptedExtensions` message packed into the same record as the
      `ServerHello` was accepted.
      
      RFC 8446 section 5.1 requires that handshake messages do not span key changes,
      and that implementations terminate the connection with an "unexpected_message"
      alert if they do.
      
      The handshake transcript is still authenticated, so a network-position attacker
      cannot use this to alter or complete a handshake; the practical effect is that
      a peer could send handshake messages that should be encrypted in plaintext
      without rustls rejecting the connection.
      
      This is functionally the same bug as Go's
      [GO-2026-4340](https://pkg.go.dev/vuln/GO-2026-4340) (CVE-2025-61730).
    ├ Announcement: https://github.com/rustls/rustls/security/advisories/GHSA-2mjx-qc3c-rqvc
    ├ Solution: Upgrade to >=0.23.45 (try `cargo update -p rustls`)
    ├ rustls v0.23.37
      ├── hyper-rustls v0.27.7
      │   └── libdd-common v8.0.0
      │       ├── libdd-common-ffi v44.0.0
      │       │   └── libdd-library-config-ffi v0.0.2
      │       └── libdd-library-config-ffi v0.0.2 (*)
      ├── libdd-common v8.0.0 (*)
      ├── rustls-platform-verifier v0.6.2
      │   └── libdd-common v8.0.0 (*)
      └── tokio-rustls v0.26.0
          └── hyper-rustls v0.27.7 (*)

advisories FAILED, bans ok, sources ok

📦 `libdd-library-config` - ✅ No issues

Updated: 2026-10-07 09:59:04 UTC | Commit: a4c617d | dependency-check job results

datadog-datadog-prod-us1 · 2026-10-02T15:36:08Z

✅ All CI checks and tests passed.

🎉 All green!

🧪 All tests passed
❄️ No new flaky tests detected

🎯 Code Coverage (details)
• Patch Coverage: 93.62%
• Overall Coverage: 80.73% (+0.05%)

_{This comment will be updated automatically if new data arrives.

🔗 Commit SHA: b8d37f1 | Docs | View more details | Give us feedback!}

yannham

Maybe @ivoanjo has an opinion on this, but I wonder if we shouldn't rather publish thread context-related metadata by default, without having to do anything else on the tracer side. Otherwise most likely other tracers will have to know they need to call this additional setter. This also let us delay the "add custom key maps" operation, for which we can implement a separate FFI function if and when we need it.

If it's important to be able to disable this behavior in some cases, we can have a setter to do so, e.g. ddog_tracer_metadata_exclude_otel_thread_context. Wdyt?

dd-octo-sts · 2026-10-02T16:25:37Z

Artifact Size Benchmark Report

aarch64-alpine-linux-musl

Artifact	Baseline	Commit	Change
/aarch64-alpine-linux-musl/lib/libdatadog_profiling.so	9.08 MB	9.08 MB	0% (0 B) 👌
/aarch64-alpine-linux-musl/lib/libdatadog_profiling.a	96.64 MB	96.71 MB	+.06% (+65.71 KB) 🔍

aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu

Artifact	Baseline	Commit	Change
/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/lib/libdatadog_profiling.so	12.27 MB	12.28 MB	+.01% (+1.82 KB) 🔍
/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/lib/libdatadog_profiling.a	108.00 MB	108.06 MB	+.05% (+65.85 KB) 🔍

libdatadog-x64-windows

Artifact	Baseline	Commit	Change
/libdatadog-x64-windows/debug/dynamic/datadog_profiling_ffi.dll	29.15 MB	29.15 MB	+.01% (+5.00 KB) 🔍
/libdatadog-x64-windows/debug/dynamic/datadog_profiling_ffi.lib	98.35 KB	98.72 KB	+.37% (+380 B) 🔍
/libdatadog-x64-windows/debug/dynamic/datadog_profiling_ffi.pdb	192.87 MB	192.97 MB	+.05% (+104.00 KB) 🔍
/libdatadog-x64-windows/debug/static/datadog_profiling_ffi.lib	818.88 MB	819.37 MB	+.05% (+502.84 KB) 🔍
/libdatadog-x64-windows/release/dynamic/datadog_profiling_ffi.dll	9.77 MB	9.77 MB	+.02% (+2.50 KB) 🔍
/libdatadog-x64-windows/release/dynamic/datadog_profiling_ffi.lib	98.35 KB	98.72 KB	+.37% (+380 B) 🔍
/libdatadog-x64-windows/release/dynamic/datadog_profiling_ffi.pdb	27.62 MB	27.62 MB	+.02% (+8.00 KB) 🔍
/libdatadog-x64-windows/release/static/datadog_profiling_ffi.lib	55.85 MB	55.86 MB	+.02% (+13.99 KB) 🔍

libdatadog-x86-windows

Artifact	Baseline	Commit	Change
/libdatadog-x86-windows/debug/dynamic/datadog_profiling_ffi.dll	25.56 MB	25.57 MB	+.01% (+5.00 KB) 🔍
/libdatadog-x86-windows/debug/dynamic/datadog_profiling_ffi.lib	99.89 KB	100.26 KB	+.37% (+384 B) 🔍
/libdatadog-x86-windows/debug/dynamic/datadog_profiling_ffi.pdb	198.58 MB	198.65 MB	+.03% (+64.00 KB) 🔍
/libdatadog-x86-windows/debug/static/datadog_profiling_ffi.lib	806.49 MB	807.06 MB	+.07% (+583.03 KB) 🔍
/libdatadog-x86-windows/release/dynamic/datadog_profiling_ffi.dll	7.58 MB	7.58 MB	+.01% (+1.50 KB) 🔍
/libdatadog-x86-windows/release/dynamic/datadog_profiling_ffi.lib	99.89 KB	100.26 KB	+.37% (+384 B) 🔍
/libdatadog-x86-windows/release/dynamic/datadog_profiling_ffi.pdb	29.73 MB	29.74 MB	+.02% (+8.00 KB) 🔍
/libdatadog-x86-windows/release/static/datadog_profiling_ffi.lib	52.76 MB	52.77 MB	+.02% (+13.17 KB) 🔍

x86_64-alpine-linux-musl

Artifact	Baseline	Commit	Change
/x86_64-alpine-linux-musl/lib/libdatadog_profiling.a	86.53 MB	86.60 MB	+.07% (+70.10 KB) 🔍
/x86_64-alpine-linux-musl/lib/libdatadog_profiling.so	10.11 MB	10.11 MB	+.07% (+8.00 KB) 🔍

x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu

Artifact	Baseline	Commit	Change
/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/lib/libdatadog_profiling.a	102.45 MB	102.52 MB	+.06% (+70.20 KB) 🔍
/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/lib/libdatadog_profiling.so	12.36 MB	12.36 MB	+.04% (+5.39 KB) 🔍

ivoanjo

👍 LGTM

Maybe @ivoanjo has an opinion on this, but I wonder if we shouldn't rather publish thread context-related metadata by default, without having to do anything else on the tracer side. Otherwise most likely other tracers will have to know they need to call this additional setter. This also let us delay the "add custom key maps" operation, for which we can implement a separate FFI function if and when we need it.

Good question! TBH no very strong opinion on this one.

The thread context by its definition needs collaboration from the caller so making this one bit slightly more automatic I'm not sure makes a big difference.

Anyway if you don't have that block, outside readers won't be able to work so it's not like you won't notice very quickly...

yannham

I don't have a strong opinion either, so I'll let you decide what you think is best (opt-out vs explicit opt-in). There are remaining comments to acknowledge but otherwise the change is sound 👍

ivoanjo · 2026-10-05T13:28:58Z

I don't have a strong opinion either, so I'll let you decide what you think is best (opt-out vs explicit opt-in). There are remaining comments to acknowledge but otherwise the change is sound 👍

Ack! We can always add it later if it looks like it's a pain point

y9v · 2026-10-06T15:46:49Z

I decided to go for opt-in, since some tracers don't need this functionality

y9v · 2026-10-07T09:57:01Z

/merge

gh-worker-devflow-routing-ef8351 · 2026-10-07T09:57:06Z

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.

2026-10-07 09:57:06 UTC ℹ️ Start processing command /merge
Use /merge -c to cancel this operation!

2026-10-07 09:57:13 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: Pull request is not mergeable yet

It will be processed automatically as soon as GitHub reports it as mergeable. View in MergeQueue UI.

Run /code blockers to see what is blocking it.
Run /remove to cancel it.

Use /merge -c to cancel this operation!

⏳ Waiting for pull request to become mergeable

y9v self-assigned this Oct 2, 2026

y9v requested review from a team as code owners October 2, 2026 15:30

y9v requested review from vpellan and removed request for a team October 2, 2026 15:30

y9v force-pushed the feat/otel-thread-context-metadata-ffi branch from 2db36ac to b5b35f0 Compare October 2, 2026 15:32

y9v force-pushed the feat/otel-thread-context-metadata-ffi branch 3 times, most recently from 11fc753 to 91d5dae Compare October 2, 2026 15:48

yannham reviewed Oct 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread libdd-library-config-ffi/src/tracer_metadata.rs Outdated

Comment thread libdd-library-config-ffi/src/tracer_metadata.rs

ivoanjo approved these changes Oct 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread libdd-library-config-ffi/src/tracer_metadata.rs

Comment thread libdd-library-config-ffi/src/tracer_metadata.rs Outdated

Comment thread libdd-library-config-ffi/src/tracer_metadata.rs Outdated

yannham approved these changes Oct 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

y9v added 3 commits October 7, 2026 10:48

feat(library-config-ffi): expose OTel thread-context metadata opt-in

2fb03f5

refactor(library-config-ffi): reuse shared FFI result wrappers

ee5c76c

test(library-config-ffi): simplify thread-context metadata tests

b8d37f1

y9v force-pushed the feat/otel-thread-context-metadata-ffi branch from bc9cf28 to b8d37f1 Compare October 7, 2026 08:59

y9v removed the request for review from vpellan October 7, 2026 08:59

gh-worker-dd-devflow-36fce6 Bot added the mergequeue-status: waiting label Oct 7, 2026

Conversation

y9v commented Oct 2, 2026

What does this PR do?

Motivation

Additional Notes

How to test the change?

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Oct 2, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codex Review Summary

Uh oh!

pr-commenter Bot commented Oct 2, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Benchmarks

Comparison

Explanation

More details about the CI and significant changes

scenario:vec_map/as_deduped_map/needs_dedup_1_in_2/8

Explanation

More details about the CI and significant changes

Explanation

More details about the CI and significant changes

Unstable benchmarks

scenario:datadog_sample_span/parent_not_sampled_short_circuit/allocated_bytes

scenario:datadog_sample_span/parent_sampled_short_circuit/allocated_bytes

scenario:glob_matcher/ascii_case_insensitive_match/allocated_bytes

scenario:glob_matcher/ascii_exact_match/allocated_bytes

scenario:glob_matcher/ascii_exact_miss/allocated_bytes

scenario:glob_matcher/ascii_wildcard_backtrack_match/allocated_bytes

scenario:glob_matcher/ascii_wildcard_heavy_backtrack/allocated_bytes

scenario:glob_matcher/ascii_wildcard_question_match/allocated_bytes

scenario:glob_matcher/ascii_wildcard_star_match/allocated_bytes

scenario:glob_matcher/star_short_circuit/allocated_bytes

Candidate

Baseline

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 2, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

📚 Documentation Check Results

📦 libdd-library-config-ffi - 588 warning(s)

📦 libdd-library-config - 276 warning(s)

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 2, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

🔒 Cargo Deny Results

📦 libdd-library-config-ffi - 1 error(s)

📦 libdd-library-config - ✅ No issues

Uh oh!

datadog-datadog-prod-us1 Bot commented Oct 2, 2026 • edited by datadog-prod-us1-6 Bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

yannham left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

dd-octo-sts Bot commented Oct 2, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Artifact Size Benchmark Report

Uh oh!

ivoanjo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

yannham left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ivoanjo commented Oct 5, 2026

Uh oh!

y9v commented Oct 6, 2026

Uh oh!

y9v commented Oct 7, 2026

Uh oh!

gh-worker-devflow-routing-ef8351 Bot commented Oct 7, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

This branch has not been deployed

Reviewers

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Oct 2, 2026 •

edited

Loading

pr-commenter Bot commented Oct 2, 2026 •

edited

Loading

github-actions Bot commented Oct 2, 2026 •

edited

Loading

📦 `libdd-library-config-ffi` - 588 warning(s)

📦 `libdd-library-config` - 276 warning(s)

github-actions Bot commented Oct 2, 2026 •

edited

Loading

📦 `libdd-library-config-ffi` - 1 error(s)

📦 `libdd-library-config` - ✅ No issues

datadog-datadog-prod-us1 Bot commented Oct 2, 2026 •

edited by datadog-prod-us1-6 Bot

Loading

dd-octo-sts Bot commented Oct 2, 2026 •

edited

Loading

gh-worker-devflow-routing-ef8351 Bot commented Oct 7, 2026 •

edited

Loading