feat(dependabot): Automate dependabot reviews

[chouetz]

What does this PR do?

• Create a new task to add reviewers on dependabot's PR base on CODEOWNERS of the dependency updates
• Add a workflow to trigger this task when dependabot PR are created
• Add another workflow to put the dependabot PR in merge queue at the last review

Motivation

Improve the dependabot process to (try to) merge them faster

Describe how you validated your changes

Added unit tests

Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs

Additional Notes

Requires https://github.com/DataDog/dd-source/pull/172909

[agent-platform-auto-pr]

[Fast Unit Tests Report]

On pipeline 55140876 (CI Visibility). The following jobs did not run any unit tests:

Jobs:

• tests_deb-arm64-py3
• tests_deb-x64-py3
• tests_flavor_dogstatsd_deb-x64
• tests_flavor_heroku_deb-x64
• tests_flavor_iot_deb-x64
• tests_rpm-arm64-py3
• tests_rpm-x64-py3
• tests_windows-x64

If you modified Go files and expected unit tests to run in these jobs, please double check the job logs. If you think tests should have been executed reach out to #agent-devx-help

[agent-platform-auto-pr]

Uncompressed package size comparison

Comparison with ancestor c741f9294366fdf079a225799173e81b1d521365

Diff per package

package	diff	status	size	ancestor	threshold
datadog-agent-aarch64-rpm	0.00MB	✅	871.06MB	871.06MB	0.50MB
datadog-agent-amd64-deb	0.00MB	✅	873.45MB	873.45MB	0.50MB
datadog-agent-arm64-deb	0.00MB	✅	861.34MB	861.34MB	0.50MB
datadog-dogstatsd-amd64-deb	0.00MB	✅	59.09MB	59.09MB	0.50MB
datadog-dogstatsd-x86_64-rpm	0.00MB	✅	59.16MB	59.16MB	0.50MB
datadog-dogstatsd-x86_64-suse	0.00MB	✅	59.16MB	59.16MB	0.50MB
datadog-dogstatsd-arm64-deb	0.00MB	✅	56.56MB	56.56MB	0.50MB
datadog-heroku-agent-amd64-deb	0.00MB	✅	445.70MB	445.70MB	0.50MB
datadog-iot-agent-amd64-deb	0.00MB	✅	86.23MB	86.23MB	0.50MB
datadog-iot-agent-x86_64-rpm	0.00MB	✅	86.30MB	86.30MB	0.50MB
datadog-iot-agent-x86_64-suse	0.00MB	✅	86.30MB	86.30MB	0.50MB
datadog-iot-agent-arm64-deb	0.00MB	✅	82.50MB	82.50MB	0.50MB
datadog-iot-agent-aarch64-rpm	0.00MB	✅	82.57MB	82.57MB	0.50MB
datadog-agent-x86_64-rpm	-0.00MB	✅	883.19MB	883.19MB	0.50MB
datadog-agent-x86_64-suse	-0.00MB	✅	883.19MB	883.19MB	0.50MB

Decision

✅ Passed

[cit-pr-commenter]

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Metrics dashboard
Target profiles
Run ID: 3ccf347c-6839-4639-9ed9-45683ae1c095

Baseline: c741f92
Comparison: 6a6b1de
Diff

Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf	experiment	goal	Δ mean %	Δ mean % CI	trials	links
➖	tcp_syslog_to_blackhole	ingress throughput	+1.99	[+1.93, +2.05]	1	Logs
➖	uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu	% cpu utilization	+1.99	[+1.13, +2.84]	1	Logs
➖	quality_gate_idle	memory utilization	+0.32	[+0.26, +0.37]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖	quality_gate_idle_all_features	memory utilization	+0.20	[+0.13, +0.27]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖	file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2	egress throughput	+0.12	[-0.74, +0.98]	1	Logs
➖	file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency	egress throughput	+0.08	[-0.79, +0.95]	1	Logs
➖	file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1	egress throughput	+0.06	[-0.80, +0.92]	1	Logs
➖	file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load	egress throughput	+0.06	[-0.41, +0.52]	1	Logs
➖	file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency	egress throughput	+0.05	[-0.72, +0.82]	1	Logs
➖	file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency	egress throughput	+0.05	[-0.62, +0.72]	1	Logs
➖	file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency	egress throughput	+0.02	[-0.62, +0.65]	1	Logs
➖	uds_dogstatsd_to_api	ingress throughput	-0.00	[-0.28, +0.28]	1	Logs
➖	tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude	ingress throughput	-0.00	[-0.02, +0.01]	1	Logs
➖	file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency	egress throughput	-0.02	[-0.81, +0.76]	1	Logs
➖	file_tree	memory utilization	-0.12	[-0.19, -0.05]	1	Logs
➖	quality_gate_logs	% cpu utilization	-0.16	[-3.18, +2.86]	1	Logs

Bounds Checks: ✅ Passed

perf	experiment	bounds_check_name	replicates_passed	links
✅	file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency	lost_bytes	10/10
✅	file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency	memory_usage	10/10
✅	file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1	lost_bytes	10/10
✅	file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http1	memory_usage	10/10
✅	file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2	lost_bytes	10/10
✅	file_to_blackhole_0ms_latency_http2	memory_usage	10/10
✅	file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency	memory_usage	10/10
✅	file_to_blackhole_1000ms_latency_linear_load	memory_usage	10/10
✅	file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency	lost_bytes	10/10
✅	file_to_blackhole_100ms_latency	memory_usage	10/10
✅	file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency	lost_bytes	10/10
✅	file_to_blackhole_300ms_latency	memory_usage	10/10
✅	file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency	lost_bytes	10/10
✅	file_to_blackhole_500ms_latency	memory_usage	10/10
✅	quality_gate_idle	intake_connections	10/10	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_idle	memory_usage	10/10	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_idle_all_features	intake_connections	10/10	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_idle_all_features	memory_usage	10/10	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_logs	intake_connections	10/10
✅	quality_gate_logs	lost_bytes	10/10
✅	quality_gate_logs	memory_usage	10/10

Explanation

Confidence level: 90.00%
Effect size tolerance: |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%

Performance changes are noted in the perf column of each table:

• ✅ = significantly better comparison variant performance
• ❌ = significantly worse comparison variant performance
• ➖ = no significant change in performance

A regression test is an A/B test of target performance in a repeatable rig, where "performance" is measured as "comparison variant minus baseline variant" for an optimization goal (e.g., ingress throughput). Due to intrinsic variability in measuring that goal, we can only estimate its mean value for each experiment; we report uncertainty in that value as a 90.00% confidence interval denoted "Δ mean % CI".

For each experiment, we decide whether a change in performance is a "regression" -- a change worth investigating further -- if all of the following criteria are true:

1. Its estimated |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%, indicating the change is big enough to merit a closer look.

2. Its 90.00% confidence interval "Δ mean % CI" does not contain zero, indicating that if our statistical model is accurate, there is at least a 90.00% chance there is a difference in performance between baseline and comparison variants.

3. Its configuration does not mark it "erratic".

CI Pass/Fail Decision

✅ Passed. All Quality Gates passed.

• quality_gate_logs, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_logs, bounds check lost_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_idle, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.

[CelianR]

It should be something like this right?

Suggested change

	if re.search(dependency, line):
	if dependency in line:

[chouetz]

I wanted to prevent edge cases (for instance we have the bun group, and bun could be in the text of another dependency), but I think there's no real need to think about such edge cases now, so your proposal is fine, thanks

[agent-platform-auto-pr]

Static quality checks ✅

Please find below the results from static quality gates

Info

Result	Quality gate	On disk size	On disk size limit	On wire size	On wire size limit
✅	static_quality_gate_agent_deb_amd64	844.75MiB	858.45MiB	203.5MiB	214.3MiB
✅	static_quality_gate_docker_agent_amd64	929.12MiB	942.69MiB	310.66MiB	321.56MiB

[CelianR]

I think we should test for !== 'APPROVED' since only a comment doesn't mean we approve

[chouetz]

You can just check here for the detailed explanation: a COMMENT doesn't mean you approve but you can have COMMENT from non-required reviewers. So we need no CHANGES_REQUESTED && requested_teams is empty