[wconti27]

Description

The Google Gen AI integration's tested-version range should cover both its lowest supported SDK release and the newest compatible release. The SDK 2.34.0 requires Python 3.11 or newer, while the integration test matrix also supports Python 3.9 and 3.10.

The latest-compatible suite row now covers Python 3.9–3.15. Its generated locks currently resolve 1.21.1 on Python 3.9–3.10 and 2.34.0 on Python 3.11–3.15. A separate google-genai~=1.21.1 row covers the lower bound on Python 3.11–3.15 without creating duplicate environments on older runtimes.

Testing

• Focused Google Gen AI suite on Python 3.12 against the latest-compatible SDK (2.34.0): 129 passed, 1 existing optional PIL test skipped.
• Same suite against the lower-bound SDK (1.21.1): 129 passed, 1 existing optional PIL test skipped.
• scripts/test-requirements check: 2,307 locks validated.
• Suitespec checks, generated registry validation, and scripts/lint checks passed.
• Independent review found no blocking issues.

Risks

None identified. No tracer runtime code or emitted telemetry changed.

Additional Notes

No release note is needed because this updates integration test coverage and generated compatibility metadata only.

---

PR by Bits - View session in Datadog

Comment @DataDog to request changes

[datadog-prod-us1-4]

View session in Datadog

Bits Code status: ✅ Done

Comment @DataDog to request changes

[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 2026-11-04T21:33:16.602467Z	e6bfd39	New commits
🔒 Security Review	✅ Completed 2026-11-04T21:34:19.113109Z	e6bfd39	New commits

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.

[datadog-prod-us1-4]

 

🎉 All green!

🧪 All tests passed
❄️ No new flaky tests detected

_{This comment will be updated automatically if new data arrives.
🔗 Commit SHA: e6bfd39 | Docs | View more details | Give us feedback!}

[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.

scripts/integration_registry/registry.yaml                              @DataDog/apm-idm-python @DataDog/ml-observability
supported_versions.json                                                 @DataDog/python-guild @DataDog/apm-idm-python @DataDog/ml-observability
tests/llmobs/suitespec.yml                                              @DataDog/ml-observability
tests/requirements_locks/09f3d53db08e.txt                               @DataDog/apm-python
tests/requirements_locks/26c441452ce4.txt                               @DataDog/apm-python
tests/requirements_locks/3d52cce427c6.txt                               @DataDog/apm-python
tests/requirements_locks/5e0d039ab75b.txt                               @DataDog/apm-python
tests/requirements_locks/62453e9a74a5.txt                               @DataDog/apm-python
tests/requirements_locks/a350071a0c2a.txt                               @DataDog/apm-python
tests/requirements_locks/a3b1ffd5a35b.txt                               @DataDog/apm-python
tests/requirements_locks/b320baab2c78.txt                               @DataDog/apm-python
tests/requirements_locks/c2761b4d918e.txt                               @DataDog/apm-python
tests/requirements_locks/fc4d453d1c84.txt                               @DataDog/apm-python

[cit-pr-commenter-54b7da]

Dependency direction analysis

⚠️ Existing dependency direction violations

There are 89 dependency direction violations that already exist on the base branch and have not been changed by this PR.

Show existing violations (showing 5 of 89 highest severity)

ddtrace.internal.tracemethods -×-> ddtrace.trace  (internal-core -> product:tracing, score=121)
ddtrace.llmobs._integrations.base -×-> ddtrace.trace  (product:llmobs -> product:tracing, score=119)
ddtrace.llmobs._integrations.langgraph -×-> ddtrace.trace  (product:llmobs -> product:tracing, score=119)
ddtrace.llmobs._integrations.bedrock -×-> ddtrace.trace  (product:llmobs -> product:tracing, score=119)
ddtrace.llmobs._integrations.google_adk -×-> ddtrace.trace  (product:llmobs -> product:tracing, score=119)

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

[datadog-prod-us1-4]

More details

The test matrix, dependency locks, and compatibility metadata consistently cover google-genai 2.34.0 on Python 3.11–3.15 while preserving 1.21.1 coverage on Python 3.9–3.10.

Was this helpful? React 👍 or 👎

_{Open Bits AI session}

_{🤖 Bits Code Review · Commit b21328e}

[pr-commenter]

Benchmarks

Benchmark execution time: 2026-11-04 21:56:14

Comparing candidate commit e6bfd39 in PR branch dd/signals/22af2bed-1842-406b-85d0-c42dbebe6173 with baseline commit 55c629b in branch main.

📊 Benchmarking dashboard

Found 0 performance improvements and 0 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 589 metrics, 10 unstable metrics, 1 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 ----------------------------------'

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 [-716.064ns; +753.864ns] or [-6.679%; +7.031%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_1_listener

• unstable execution_time [-32.968ns; +38.109ns] or [-4.794%; +5.541%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_50_listeners

• unstable execution_time [-2078.581ns; +1784.502ns] or [-10.319%; +8.859%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_exception_listeners

• unstable execution_time [-2006.906ns; +1636.686ns] or [-10.498%; +8.561%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_listeners

• unstable execution_time [-389.287ns; +372.596ns] or [-9.050%; +8.662%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_no_args_listeners

• unstable execution_time [-220.722ns; +230.016ns] or [-8.170%; +8.514%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_with_results_1_listener

• unstable execution_time [-103.638ns; +77.896ns] or [-7.218%; +5.425%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_with_results_50_listeners

• unstable execution_time [-4986.420ns; +4796.290ns] or [-9.782%; +9.409%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_with_results_listeners

• unstable execution_time [-1203.230ns; +805.848ns] or [-11.111%; +7.442%]

scenario:packagesupdateimporteddependencies-import_many_stdlib_cached

• unstable execution_time [-50.579µs; +61.575µs] or [-8.695%; +10.585%]

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.

Known flaky benchmarks without significant changes:

• scenario:packagespackageforrootmodulemapping-cache_off