Add size limit to debugger capture

[bwoebi]

Bounding snapshots by 1 MB.

[datadog-prod-us1-6]

 

✨ Unblock PR with BitsAI

⚠️ Warnings

🚦 6 Pipeline jobs failed

DataDog/apm-reliability/dd-trace-php | test_extension_ci: [8.2] — 🔧 Needs a code fix, caused by this PR

View in Datadog · View in GitLab

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

View in Datadog · View in GitLab

DataDog/apm-reliability/dd-trace-php | ASAN test_c with multiple observers: [8.4]

View in Datadog · View in GitLab

View all 6 failed jobs.

ℹ️ Info

No other issues found (see more)

🧪 All tests passed
❄️ No new flaky tests detected

🔄 Datadog auto-retried 1 job - 1 passed on retry

🎯 Code Coverage (details)
• Patch Coverage: 100.00%
• Overall Coverage: 60.67% (+0.00%)

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎

_{This comment will be updated automatically if new data arrives.
🔗 Commit SHA: c4c8e3f | Docs | View more details | Give us feedback!}

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 837e51c4f3

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".

[pr-commenter]

Benchmarks [ tracer ]

Benchmark execution time: 2026-08-21 17:32:45

Comparing candidate commit c4c8e3f in PR branch bob/debugger-size-limit with baseline commit 93f7b2d in branch master.

Found 3 performance improvements and 3 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 187 metrics, 1 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:ContextPropagationBench/benchInject64Bit

• 🟥 execution_time [+510.090ns; +755.910ns] or [+2.804%; +4.155%]

scenario:MessagePackSerializationBench/benchMessagePackSerialization

• 🟩 execution_time [-7.838µs; -7.402µs] or [-7.055%; -6.662%]

scenario:MessagePackSerializationBench/benchMessagePackSerialization-opcache

• 🟩 execution_time [-8.261µs; -7.299µs] or [-7.251%; -6.406%]

scenario:SamplingRuleMatchingBench/benchRegexMatching2

• 🟥 execution_time [+38.477ns; +133.523ns] or [+2.573%; +8.928%]

scenario:SamplingRuleMatchingBench/benchRegexMatching4

• 🟥 execution_time [+38.327ns; +142.273ns] or [+2.560%; +9.504%]

scenario:TraceFlushBench/benchFlushTrace

• 🟩 execution_time [-17.949µs; -7.851µs] or [-4.919%; -2.152%]