ci: define uv snapshot ddtest templates

[mabdinur]

Description

PR #19870 made the DDTest job generator select snapshot-specific templates whenever a suite uses ddtest: true and snapshot: true. For uv suites, it emits .ddtest_base_uv_snapshot and .ddtest_run_uv_snapshot, but #19870 only defined the non-snapshot uv templates.

The bug remained hidden until #20034 migrated integration_testagent to a suitespec matrix. GitLab then rejected the generated child pipeline because .ddtest_run_uv_snapshot did not exist. No test jobs could start. The same issue would affect any future snapshot suite using both DDTest and uv.

Fix

• Define .ddtest_base_uv_snapshot by extending the existing .test_base_uv_snapshot. This reuses its Datadog Agent and test-agent services, test-agent URL setup, and project symlink.
• Define .ddtest_run_uv_snapshot by extending .ddtest_run_uv and taking its services from the snapshot base.
• Keep dependency installation and DDTest execution identical to the normal uv path. Only the snapshot test-agent setup is added.

Testing

• Generated integration_testagent jobs from the chore(tests): run all remaning test suites with uv (profiling, debugger, core) #20034 head with this commit applied.
• GitLab CI lint accepted the complete generated child configuration.
• All 17 generator tests passed on Python 3.12 through scripts/run-tests.
• scripts/lint checks passed.

Risks

Low. Riot jobs and non-snapshot uv jobs are unchanged. The new templates are only selected for DDTest snapshot suites using uv.

Additional Notes

No customer-facing change.

[datadog-datadog-prod-us1]

🎉 All green!

🧪 All tests passed
❄️ No new flaky tests detected

🔄 Datadog retried 2 tests - 2 passed on retry

🚧 13 tests that failed were ignored due to quarantine

_{This comment will be updated automatically if new data arrives.
🔗 Commit SHA: 515e06a | Docs | View more details | Give us feedback!}

[pr-commenter]

Benchmarks

Benchmark execution time: 2026-09-08 20:19:59

Comparing candidate commit 515e06a in PR branch codex/fix-ddtest-uv-snapshot-templates with baseline commit a672a68 in branch main.

📊 Benchmarking dashboard

Found 0 performance improvements and 1 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 572 metrics, 10 unstable metrics, 6 known flaky benchmarks, 18 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:samplingrules-high_match

• 🟥 execution_time [+15.108µs; +16.814µs] or [+9.845%; +10.957%]

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 [-716.880ns; +751.788ns] or [-6.497%; +6.814%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_1_listener

• unstable execution_time [-33.523ns; +33.131ns] or [-5.457%; +5.394%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_50_listeners

• unstable execution_time [-1801.052ns; +1502.691ns] or [-10.494%; +8.756%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_exception_listeners

• unstable execution_time [-1490.020ns; +998.092ns] or [-11.248%; +7.535%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_listeners

• unstable execution_time [-334.176ns; +320.553ns] or [-9.079%; +8.709%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_no_args_listeners

• unstable execution_time [-249.326ns; +255.189ns] or [-8.536%; +8.737%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_with_results_1_listener

• unstable execution_time [-53.470ns; +99.700ns] or [-4.708%; +8.778%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_with_results_50_listeners

• unstable execution_time [-3759.229ns; +4263.952ns] or [-9.196%; +10.430%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_with_results_listeners

• unstable execution_time [-612.629ns; +919.325ns] or [-7.668%; +11.507%]

scenario:packagesupdateimporteddependencies-import_many_stdlib_cached

• unstable execution_time [-58.000µs; +53.816µs] or [-9.915%; +9.199%]

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 [+1.895µs; +2.049µs] or [+11.154%; +12.063%]

scenario:iastaspectsospath-ospathbasename_aspect

• 🟥 execution_time [+131.330µs; +137.777µs] or [+33.617%; +35.267%]

scenario:iastaspectssplit-rsplit_aspect

• 🟥 execution_time [+19.048µs; +23.062µs] or [+13.489%; +16.331%]

scenario:span-start

• 🟥 execution_time [+1.937ms; +2.158ms] or [+14.085%; +15.693%]

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

• 🟥 execution_time [+318.611ns; +363.037ns] or [+10.929%; +12.453%]

scenario:tracer-small

• 🟥 execution_time [+41.279µs; +43.995µs] or [+12.793%; +13.635%]

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_aspect
• 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

[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 2026-09-08T18:56:03.643994Z	dd4eaab	Draft marked ready

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.

[mabdinur]

/merge

[gh-worker-devflow-routing-ef8351]

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.

2026-09-08 18:55:53 UTC ℹ️ Start processing command /merge

---

2026-09-08 18:55:55 UTC ❌ MergeQueue

PR already in the queue with status waiting

[cit-pr-commenter-54b7da]

Circular import analysis

⚠️ Existing circular imports

There are 2 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
ddtrace.appsec._asm_request_context -> ddtrace.appsec._iast._iast_request_context_base -> ddtrace.appsec._iast._iast_env -> ddtrace.appsec._iast.reporter -> ddtrace.appsec._exploit_prevention.stack_traces -> ddtrace.appsec._asm_request_context

[cit-pr-commenter-54b7da]

Dependency direction analysis

⚠️ Existing dependency direction violations

There are 230 dependency direction violations that already exist on the base branch and have not been changed by this PR.

Show existing violations (showing 5 of 230 highest severity)

ddtrace.internal.tracemethods -×-> ddtrace.trace  (internal-core -> product:tracing, score=134)
ddtrace.llmobs._utils -×-> ddtrace.trace  (product:llmobs -> product:tracing, score=132)
ddtrace.internal.ci_visibility.git_client -×-> ddtrace.trace  (product:ci_visibility -> product:tracing, score=132)
ddtrace.internal.ci_visibility.api._base -×-> ddtrace.trace  (product:ci_visibility -> product:tracing, score=132)
ddtrace.llmobs._integrations.claude_agent_sdk -×-> ddtrace.trace  (product:llmobs -> product:tracing, score=132)

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]

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.

No remaining files require a CODEOWNERS review.

[mabdinur]

/merge -f --reason flaky tracer system test is blocking merge queue (https://github.com/DataDog/dd-trace-py/pull/20139/checks?check_run_id=102239129665)

[gh-worker-devflow-routing-ef8351]

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.

2026-09-08 22:06:42 UTC ℹ️ Start processing command /merge -f --reason flaky tracer system test is blocking merge queue (https://github.com/DataDog/dd-trace-py/pull/20139/checks?check_run_id=102239129665)

---

2026-09-08 22:06:47 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: pull request added to the queue

The expected merge time in main is approximately 0s (p90).

---

2026-09-08 22:06:56 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: This merge request was merged

Warning

This change was merged without running any pre merge CI checks

Reason: flaky tracer system test is blocking merge queue (https://github.com/DataDog/dd-trace-py/pull/20139/checks?check_run_id=102239129665)

[mabdinur]

/merge

[gh-worker-devflow-routing-ef8351]

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.

2026-09-08 22:07:59 UTC ℹ️ Start processing command /merge

---

2026-09-08 22:08:02 UTC ❌ MergeQueue

This PR is already merged