remove ebpf clang pre-commit

[brycekahle]

What does this PR do?

remove ebpf clang pre-commit

Motivation

No eBPF developers are checking this, largely because we don't have a style that we all agree on. clang-format and clang-tidy are also not as flexible as we would like.

Additional Notes

• removed clang-format and clang-tidy tasks in system-probe tasks

Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs

Describe how to test/QA your changes

[agent-platform-auto-pr]

[Fast Unit Tests Report]

On pipeline 39597446 (CI Visibility). The following jobs did not run any unit tests:

Jobs:

• tests_deb-arm64-py3
• tests_deb-x64-py3
• tests_flavor_dogstatsd_deb-x64
• tests_flavor_heroku_deb-x64
• tests_flavor_iot_deb-x64
• tests_rpm-arm64-py3
• tests_rpm-x64-py3
• tests_windows-x64

If you modified Go files and expected unit tests to run in these jobs, please double check the job logs. If you think tests should have been executed reach out to #agent-devx-help

[KevinFairise2]

LGTM.
I just see that we also have a pre-commit check-winclang-format do you know if this requires the .clang-format files you just deleted?

[brycekahle]

I just see that we also have a pre-commit check-winclang-format do you know if this requires the .clang-format files you just deleted?

@KevinFairise2 I checked with WKIT and they don't use this check. I'm checking with the other windows agent teams.

[brycekahle]

@KevinFairise2 @julien-lebot is using the .clang-format file, so I re-added it.

[pr-commenter]

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Run ID: 60aa274b-d7c4-45cb-a956-e5060dd52aca Metrics dashboard Target profiles

Baseline: 379e006
Comparison: 2e90834

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

No significant changes in experiment optimization goals

Confidence level: 90.00%
Effect size tolerance: |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%

There were no significant changes in experiment optimization goals at this confidence level and effect size tolerance.

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf	experiment	goal	Δ mean %	Δ mean % CI	links
➖	pycheck_1000_100byte_tags	% cpu utilization	+0.81	[-3.97, +5.60]	Logs
➖	uds_dogstatsd_to_api	ingress throughput	-0.00	[-0.00, +0.00]	Logs
➖	tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude	ingress throughput	-0.00	[-0.01, +0.01]	Logs
➖	uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu	% cpu utilization	-0.09	[-0.98, +0.80]	Logs
➖	file_tree	memory utilization	-0.12	[-0.20, -0.04]	Logs
➖	idle	memory utilization	-0.13	[-0.17, -0.09]	Logs
➖	tcp_syslog_to_blackhole	ingress throughput	-0.41	[-13.20, +12.37]	Logs
➖	otel_to_otel_logs	ingress throughput	-0.62	[-1.43, +0.18]	Logs
➖	basic_py_check	% cpu utilization	-1.04	[-3.54, +1.46]	Logs

Explanation

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".

[brycekahle]

/merge

[dd-devflow]

🚂 MergeQueue: pull request added to the queue

The median merge time in main is 22m.

Use /merge -c to cancel this operation!