fix(otel-metrics): skip spans with client-computed stats

[mabdinur]

What

Datadog tracing libraries can emit spans as OTLP while also computing APM stats client-side
(CSS). Those spans carry _dd.stats_computed as a resource or span attribute.

Before this PR, the DDOT connector did not inspect that marker. It converted the spans and
recomputed hits, errors, and duration, double-counting stats the tracing library had already
produced.

After this PR, the connector treats _dd.stats_computed as a ResourceSpans-level signal. When
the marker is truthy on the resource or any span it contains, every span in that ResourceSpans
is excluded from the connector's concentrator. Other resources in the same OTLP batch remain
eligible for Agent-computed stats.

Why resource scope is correct

• Client-side stats are enabled or disabled for the whole ddtrace client; there is no partial
  per-span enablement.
• The ddtrace OTLP path emits _dd.stats_computed as a resource attribute.
• The Agent and built-in collector processors preserve or copy the resource and its attributes
  when forwarding, batching, splitting, or regrouping trace data.

One marked span is therefore sufficient evidence for its containing ResourceSpans, but not for
other resources that happen to share the same ptrace.Traces payload.

Changes

• Detect _dd.stats_computed on both resource and span attributes.
• Promote a span-level marker to its containing ResourceSpans.
• Skip every span belonging to a client-computed resource while retaining unmarked resources.
• Return before span indexing and top-level detection when the entire payload is client-computed.
• Allocate the computed-resource set only when a marker is found.
• Treat absent, empty, or false markers as not client-computed; other non-empty values enable
  the skip.

Performance

The same focused benchmark was run at the PR's base commit and current head on an Apple M4 Max
with GOMAXPROCS=1. The payload contains 10 resources with 10 spans each.

Scenario	Before PR	After PR	Result
Client stats enabled	~281.6 us/op	~0.82 us/op	~344x faster
Client stats disabled	~282.5 us/op	~283.7 us/op	+0.4%, within benchmark noise

With client stats enabled, memory falls from 114,808 B/op to 712 B/op and allocations from 855 to
5. With client stats disabled, memory and allocations are unchanged at 114,808 B/op and 855
allocations/op.

The added no-marker resource scan measures approximately 0.50 us per 100 spans with zero
allocations. That is about 0.18% of the baseline conversion cost, or roughly 5 ns per span for this
payload.

Validation

bazel test //pkg/trace/otel/stats:stats_test
bazel test //comp/otelcol/otlp/components/connector/datadogconnector:datadogconnector_test

Both targets pass. Tests cover marker parsing, resource-level markers, promotion of a span marker
to its containing resource, and retaining unmarked resources in the same payload.

[datadog-official]

🎯 Code Coverage (details)
• Patch Coverage: 100.00%
• Overall Coverage: 52.34% (+0.04%)

_{This comment will be updated automatically if new data arrives.
🔗 Commit SHA: 24d543a | Docs | View more details | Give us feedback!}

[dd-octo-sts]

Files inventory check summary

File checks results against ancestor efa5d8ab:

Results for datadog-agent_7.84.0~devel.git.55.24d543a.pipeline.130206309-1_amd64.deb:

No change detected

Results for datadog-iot-agent_7.84.0~devel.git.55.24d543a.pipeline.130206309-1_amd64.deb:

No change detected

[dd-octo-sts]

Static quality checks

✅ Please find below the results from static quality gates
Comparison made with ancestor efa5d8a
📊 Static Quality Gates Dashboard
🔗 SQG Job

Successful checks

Info

	Quality gate	Change	Size (prev → curr → max)
✅	docker_agent_amd64	+3.03 KiB (0.00% increase, -0.16% of buffer)	818.158 → 818.161 → 819.970
✅	docker_agent_arm64	+5.42 KiB (0.00% increase, -0.35% of buffer)	819.162 → 819.167 → 820.690
✅	docker_agent_jmx_amd64	+3.05 KiB (0.00% increase, -0.18% of buffer)	1009.055 → 1009.058 → 1010.730
✅	docker_agent_jmx_arm64	+5.41 KiB (0.00% increase, -0.32% of buffer)	998.712 → 998.717 → 1000.370
✅	docker_host_profiler_amd64	+7.25 KiB (0.00% increase, -0.06% of buffer)	305.801 → 305.808 → 317.690
✅	docker_host_profiler_arm64	+7.24 KiB (0.00% increase, -0.06% of buffer)	317.116 → 317.123 → 328.970

27 successful checks with minimal change (< 2 KiB)

	Quality gate	Current Size
✅	agent_deb_amd64	759.545 MiB
✅	agent_deb_amd64_fips	712.883 MiB
✅	agent_heroku_amd64	312.273 MiB
✅	agent_msi	643.246 MiB
✅	agent_rpm_amd64	759.529 MiB
✅	agent_rpm_amd64_fips	712.867 MiB
✅	agent_rpm_arm64	735.492 MiB
✅	agent_rpm_arm64_fips	692.101 MiB
✅	agent_suse_amd64	759.529 MiB
✅	agent_suse_amd64_fips	712.867 MiB
✅	agent_suse_arm64	735.492 MiB
✅	agent_suse_arm64_fips	692.101 MiB
✅	docker_cluster_agent_amd64	210.228 MiB
✅	docker_cluster_agent_arm64	223.268 MiB
✅	docker_cws_instrumentation_amd64	7.439 MiB
✅	docker_cws_instrumentation_arm64	6.877 MiB
✅	docker_dogstatsd_amd64	39.479 MiB
✅	docker_dogstatsd_arm64	37.560 MiB
✅	dogstatsd_deb_amd64	30.220 MiB
✅	dogstatsd_deb_arm64	28.243 MiB
✅	dogstatsd_rpm_amd64	30.220 MiB
✅	dogstatsd_suse_amd64	30.220 MiB
✅	iot_agent_deb_amd64	46.416 MiB
✅	iot_agent_deb_arm64	43.091 MiB
✅	iot_agent_deb_armhf	43.871 MiB
✅	iot_agent_rpm_amd64	46.416 MiB
✅	iot_agent_suse_amd64	46.415 MiB

[cit-pr-commenter-54b7da]

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Metrics dashboard
Target profiles
Job ID: b2aae965-7abc-4d2d-b66d-e8feff2acce5

Baseline: eb756d8
Comparison: 000d4ef
Diff

Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf	experiment	goal	Δ mean %	Δ mean % CI	trials	links
➖	quality_gate_metrics_logs	memory utilization	+0.70	[+0.46, +0.93]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖	quality_gate_security_idle	memory utilization	+0.48	[+0.43, +0.53]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖	quality_gate_security_no_fs_load	memory utilization	+0.29	[+0.20, +0.38]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖	quality_gate_idle	memory utilization	+0.15	[+0.11, +0.19]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖	quality_gate_security_mean_fs_load	memory utilization	-0.00	[-0.03, +0.03]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖	quality_gate_private_action_runner	memory utilization	-0.08	[-0.20, +0.04]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖	quality_gate_idle_all_features	memory utilization	-0.31	[-0.35, -0.28]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖	quality_gate_logs	% cpu utilization	-0.46	[-1.33, +0.40]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard

Bounds Checks: ✅ Passed

perf	experiment	bounds_check_name	replicates_passed	observed_value	links
✅	quality_gate_idle	intake_connections	10/10	4 = 4	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_idle	memory_usage	10/10	173.77MiB ≤ 178MiB	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_idle	total_bytes_received	10/10	745.18KiB ≤ 819.20KiB	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_idle_all_features	intake_connections	10/10	4 = 4	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_idle_all_features	memory_usage	10/10	512.86MiB ≤ 538MiB	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_idle_all_features	total_bytes_received	10/10	1.14MiB ≤ 1.25MiB	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_logs	intake_connections	10/10	19 ≤ 40	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_logs	memory_usage	10/10	215.89MiB ≤ 229MiB	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_logs	missed_bytes	10/10	0B = 0B	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_logs	total_bytes_received	10/10	263.51MiB ≤ 292MiB	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_metrics_logs	cpu_usage	10/10	365.02 ≤ 2000	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_metrics_logs	intake_connections	10/10	20 ≤ 40	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_metrics_logs	memory_usage	10/10	433.49MiB ≤ 453MiB	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_metrics_logs	missed_bytes	10/10	0B = 0B	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_metrics_logs	total_bytes_received	10/10	0.94GiB ≤ 1.04GiB	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_private_action_runner	memory_usage	10/10	72.05MiB ≤ 76MiB	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_security_idle	cpu_usage	10/10	28.40 ≤ 100	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_security_idle	memory_usage	10/10	325.89MiB ≤ 335MiB	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_security_mean_fs_load	cpu_usage	10/10	62.06 ≤ 200	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_security_mean_fs_load	memory_usage	10/10	302.54MiB ≤ 314MiB	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_security_no_fs_load	cpu_usage	10/10	22.69 ≤ 100	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_security_no_fs_load	memory_usage	10/10	309.35MiB ≤ 343MiB	bounds checks dashboard

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_private_action_runner, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_logs, bounds check missed_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_logs, bounds check total_bytes_received: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_logs, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_security_mean_fs_load, bounds check cpu_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_security_mean_fs_load, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_security_no_fs_load, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_security_no_fs_load, bounds check cpu_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.
• quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check total_bytes_received: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_security_idle, bounds check cpu_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_security_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_idle, bounds check total_bytes_received: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_idle, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check cpu_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check total_bytes_received: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check missed_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.

[mabdinur]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: bd297c51c7

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".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[mabdinur]

/merge

[gh-worker-devflow-routing-ef8351]

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.

2026-08-10 23:07:28 UTC ℹ️ Start processing command /merge

---

2026-08-10 23:07:35 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.

---

2026-08-11 00:39:12 UTC ⚠️ MergeQueue: This merge request was unqueued

munir.abdinur@datadoghq.com unqueued this merge request

[mabdinur]

/merge

[gh-worker-devflow-routing-ef8351]

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.

2026-08-20 19:16:44 UTC ℹ️ Start processing command /merge

---

2026-08-20 19:16:49 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: pull request added to the queue

The expected merge time in main is approximately 2h (p90).

---

2026-08-20 20:30:06 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: This merge request was merged