Fix SidecarFeaturesDisabledTests regression from sidecar appsec integration

[estringana]

Summary

After #3725 embedded appsec into the sidecar, SidecarFeaturesDisabledTests > appsec is disabled and sidecar is not launched started failing intermittently.

The test was killing the sidecar with kill -9 and then restarting Apache. The problem: existing Apache workers hold a reconnect callback (registered in ddog_sidecar_connect_php). When the sidecar is killed, the reconnect mechanism immediately spawns a new sidecar subprocess — before Apache restarts. That new subprocess becomes an orphan (its parent workers die during the restart), and pgrep -f datadog-ipc-helper finds it, failing the assertion.

Fix: restart Apache first so the old workers — and their reconnect callbacks — are torn down cleanly. Only then kill any remaining sidecar. Since the new workers start with datadog.appsec.enabled=false, they don't connect to the sidecar and no reconnect will be triggered.

[datadog-official]

 

✨ Unblock PR with BitsAI

⚠️ Warnings

❌ Your PR has failed checks. Please review the issues below and take necessary action before merging.

🚦 9 Pipeline jobs failed

DataDog/apm-reliability/dd-trace-php | check libxml2 version — 🔧 Needs a code fix, caused by this PR

View more details · View in GitLab

DataDog/apm-reliability/dd-trace-php | check-big-regressions — 🔧 Needs a code fix, caused by this PR

View more details · View in GitLab

DataDog/apm-reliability/dd-trace-php | test_extension_ci: [8.3] — 🔧 Needs a code fix, caused by this PR

View more details · View in GitLab

View all 9 failed jobs.

ℹ️ Info

No other issues found (see more)

🧪 All tests passed
❄️ No new flaky tests detected

🎯 Code Coverage (details)
• Patch Coverage: 50.00%
• Overall Coverage: 55.03% (-0.02%)

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎

_{This comment will be updated automatically if new data arrives.
🔗 Commit SHA: d2234fb | Docs | View more details | Give us feedback!}

[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 2026-09-07T15:38:45.456464Z	fa17942	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.

[cataphract]

I think it would be preferable to make the shutdown messages not try to restart sidecar. So, do not retry in that case.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: fa1794266c

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".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Wait for old Apache workers before killing the sidecar

When service apache2 restart returns while an old worker is still draining, the subsequent kill can occur while that worker still owns its reconnect callback, allowing it to spawn the same orphaned sidecar before exiting and leaving the final pgrep assertion flaky. In this test container, CrashDetectionTests.groovy:97-100 explicitly captures and waits for old worker PIDs after the same restart command, so equivalent synchronization is needed here before killing the helper.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

[pr-commenter]

Benchmarks [ tracer ]

Benchmark execution time: 2026-09-09 19:28:37

Comparing candidate commit d2234fb in PR branch estringana/fix-appsec-tests with baseline commit 4afbf6f in branch master.

Found 0 performance improvements and 3 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 191 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:SamplingRuleMatchingBench/benchRegexMatching1

• 🟥 execution_time [+75.923ns; +162.077ns] or [+5.189%; +11.077%]

scenario:SamplingRuleMatchingBench/benchRegexMatching2

• 🟥 execution_time [+65.128ns; +123.072ns] or [+4.427%; +8.365%]

scenario:SamplingRuleMatchingBench/benchRegexMatching3

• 🟥 execution_time [+17.796µs; +17.941µs] or [+1209.884%; +1219.744%]

[pr-commenter]

Benchmarks [ appsec ]

Benchmark execution time: 2026-09-09 18:34:31

Comparing candidate commit d2234fb in PR branch estringana/fix-appsec-tests with baseline commit 4afbf6f in branch master.

Found 0 performance improvements and 0 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 12 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 ----------------------------------'