chore: update mlflow latest version to 3.15.1

[dd-octo-sts]

Update mlflow lockfiles and dependency package lockfiles.
This performs the following updates:

1. Some mlflow lockfiles use mlflow latest. This will update mlflow and dependencies.
2. Some mlflow lockfiles use a pinned (non-latest) version of mlflow, but require the latest version of another package. This will update all such packages.

[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.

.riot/requirements/1927469.txt                                          @DataDog/apm-python
.riot/requirements/19f9f09.txt                                          @DataDog/apm-python
.riot/requirements/ac53b06.txt                                          @DataDog/apm-python
.riot/requirements/c724a8e.txt                                          @DataDog/apm-python
scripts/integration_registry/registry.yaml                              @DataDog/apm-idm-python
supported_versions.json                                                 @DataDog/apm-core-python @DataDog/apm-idm-python

[cit-pr-commenter-54b7da]

Circular import analysis

⚠️ Existing circular imports

There are 5 circular imports that already exist on the base branch and have not been changed by this PR.

ddtrace.contrib.internal.django.patch -> ddtrace.contrib.internal.django.response -> ddtrace.contrib.internal.django.patch
ddtrace.contrib.internal.pytorch._distributed -> ddtrace.contrib.internal.pytorch._rank_root -> ddtrace.contrib.internal.pytorch._distributed
ddtrace.llmobs -> ddtrace.llmobs._evaluators -> ddtrace.llmobs._evaluators.format -> ddtrace.llmobs._experiment -> ddtrace.llmobs
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

[datadog-prod-us1-5]

 

⚠️ Warnings

🚦 9 Pipeline jobs failed

DataDog/apm-reliability/dd-trace-py | build linux serverless: [amd64, cp315-cp315, v113741238-d2b8243-manylinux2014_x86_64, 1]     

DataDog/apm-reliability/dd-trace-py | build linux serverless: [amd64, cp315-cp315, v126532274-233089d-musllinux_1_2_x86_64, 1]     

DataDog/apm-reliability/dd-trace-py | build linux serverless: [arm64, cp315-cp315, v113741357-d2b8243-manylinux2014_aarch64, 1]     

View all 9 failed jobs.

ℹ️ Info

No other issues found (see more)

🧪 All tests passed
❄️ No new flaky tests detected

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎

_{This comment will be updated automatically if new data arrives.
🔗 Commit SHA: 2f7bd9c | Docs | Datadog PR Page | Give us feedback!}

[pr-commenter]

Benchmarks

Benchmark execution time: 2026-08-17 00:55:25

Comparing candidate commit 2f7bd9c in PR branch upgrade-latest-mlflow-version with baseline commit e5c63be in branch main.

📊 Benchmarking dashboard

Found 0 performance improvements and 8 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 613 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 ----------------------------------'

scenario:httppropagationinject-ids_only

• 🟥 execution_time [+2.372µs; +2.582µs] or [+10.901%; +11.863%]

scenario:iastaspects-lower_aspect

• 🟥 execution_time [+52.034µs; +57.671µs] or [+22.126%; +24.523%]

scenario:iastaspects-title_aspect

• 🟥 execution_time [+51.786µs; +56.111µs] or [+19.689%; +21.333%]

scenario:iastaspectsospath-ospathbasename_aspect

• 🟥 execution_time [+115.428µs; +122.661µs] or [+28.103%; +29.864%]

scenario:iastaspectssplit-rsplit_aspect

• 🟥 execution_time [+16.809µs; +21.535µs] or [+11.908%; +15.256%]

scenario:span-start

• 🟥 execution_time [+1.159ms; +1.319ms] or [+7.604%; +8.650%]

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

• 🟥 execution_time [+476.231ns; +512.812ns] or [+18.050%; +19.436%]

scenario:tracer-small

• 🟥 execution_time [+27.513µs; +30.128µs] or [+8.337%; +9.129%]

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 [-857.958ns; +626.217ns] or [-7.768%; +5.670%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_1_listener

• unstable execution_time [-40.490ns; +25.591ns] or [-6.598%; +4.170%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_50_listeners

• unstable execution_time [-1792.816ns; +1506.891ns] or [-10.479%; +8.808%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_exception_listeners

• unstable execution_time [-1264.839ns; +1203.343ns] or [-9.753%; +9.278%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_listeners

• unstable execution_time [-347.605ns; +305.268ns] or [-9.427%; +8.279%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_no_args_listeners

• unstable execution_time [-267.327ns; +244.072ns] or [-9.107%; +8.315%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_with_results_1_listener

• unstable execution_time [-121.442ns; +29.859ns] or [-10.087%; +2.480%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_with_results_50_listeners

• unstable execution_time [-3690.806ns; +4342.627ns] or [-9.063%; +10.663%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_with_results_listeners

• unstable execution_time [-846.396ns; +694.805ns] or [-10.333%; +8.482%]

scenario:packagesupdateimporteddependencies-import_many_stdlib_cached

• unstable execution_time [-54.182µs; +66.108µs] or [-8.551%; +10.433%]

[cit-pr-commenter-54b7da]

Dependency direction analysis

⚠️ Existing dependency direction violations

There are 254 dependency direction violations that already exist on the base branch and have not been changed by this PR.

Show existing violations (showing 5 of 254 highest severity)

ddtrace.internal.tracemethods -×-> ddtrace.trace  (internal-core -> product:tracing, score=134)
ddtrace.llmobs._evaluators.runner -×-> ddtrace.trace  (product:llmobs -> product:tracing, score=132)
ddtrace.llmobs._integrations.bedrock_agents -×-> ddtrace.trace  (product:llmobs -> product:tracing, score=132)
ddtrace.appsec._contrib.flask -×-> ddtrace.trace  (product:appsec -> product:tracing, score=132)
ddtrace.internal.ci_visibility.filters -×-> ddtrace.trace  (product:ci_visibility -> 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