APMSP-1542 feat: setup dotnet CI and add support for win-x64, win-x86, linux-x64, linux-arm64 & osx-arm64 #771
Conversation
![datadog-datadog-prod-us1[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/365230?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
| @@ -0,0 +1,54 @@ | |||
| on: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🟠 Code Vulnerability
No explicit permissions set for at the workflow level (...read more)
Datadog’s GitHub organization defines default permissions for the GITHUB_TOKEN to be restricted (contents:read, metadata:read, and packages:read).
Your repository may require a different setup, so consider defining permissions for each job following the least privilege principle to restrict the impact of a possible compromise.
You can find the list of all possible permissions in Workflow syntax for GitHub Actions - GitHub Docs. They can be defined at the job or the workflow level.
BenchmarksComparisonBenchmark execution time: 2025-01-14 19:19:10 Comparing candidate commit 1e22aaf in PR branch Found 0 performance improvements and 1 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 50 metrics, 2 unstable metrics. scenario:benching deserializing traces from msgpack to their internal representation
CandidateCandidate benchmark detailsGroup 1
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
Group 5
Group 6
Group 7
Group 8
Group 9
Group 10
Group 11
Group 12
BaselineOmitted due to size. |
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #771 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 71.02% 71.02%
=======================================
Files 315 315
Lines 45972 45972
=======================================
Hits 32652 32652
Misses 13320 13320
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
ganeshnj
force-pushed
the
ganeshnj/feat/linux-osx-nuget
branch
from
1764c70 to
e41eef6
Compare
ganeshnj
force-pushed
the
ganeshnj/feat/linux-osx-nuget
branch
4 times, most recently
from
541c0e5 to
28e6260
Compare
ganeshnj
changed the title
ganeshnj
changed the title
ganeshnj
force-pushed
the
ganeshnj/feat/linux-osx-nuget
branch
from
28e6260 to
35465a3
Compare
ganeshnj
force-pushed
the
ganeshnj/feat/linux-osx-nuget
branch
3 times, most recently
from
a9c66db to
ebeeec2
Compare
| needs: test | ||
| steps: | ||
| - name: Checkout code | ||
| uses: actions/checkout@v4 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🟠 Code Vulnerability
Workflow depends on a GitHub actions pinned by tag (...read more)
When using a third party action, one needs to provide its GitHub path (owner/project) and can eventually pin it to a Git ref (a branch name, a Git tag, or a commit hash).
No pinned Git ref means the action uses the latest commit of the default branch each time it runs, eventually running newer versions of the code that were not audited by Datadog. Specifying a Git tag is better, but since they are not immutable, using a full length hash is recommended to make sure the action content is actually frozen to some reviewed state.
Be careful however, as even pinning an action by hash can be circumvented by attackers still. For instance, if an action relies on a Docker image which is itself not pinned to a digest, it becomes possible to alter its behaviour through the Docker image without actually changing its hash. You can learn more about this kind of attacks in Unpinnable Actions: How Malicious Code Can Sneak into Your GitHub Actions Workflows. Pinning actions by hash is still a good first line of defense against supply chain attacks.
Additionally, pinning by hash or tag means the action won’t benefit from newer version updates if any, including eventual security patches. Make sure to regularly check if newer versions for an action you use are available. For actions coming from a very trustworthy source, it can make sense to use a laxer pinning policy to benefit from updates as soon as possible.
| dotnet pack windows/libdatadog.csproj -p:LibDatadogBinariesOutputDir=../${{ env.OUTPUT_DIR }} -p:LibDatadogVersion=$version -p:PackageID=${{ env.NUGET_NAME }} -o ${{ env.PACKAGES_DIR }} | ||
|
|
||
| - name: Upload package | ||
| uses: actions/upload-artifact@v4 # v4 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🟠 Code Vulnerability
Workflow depends on a GitHub actions pinned by tag (...read more)
When using a third party action, one needs to provide its GitHub path (owner/project) and can eventually pin it to a Git ref (a branch name, a Git tag, or a commit hash).
No pinned Git ref means the action uses the latest commit of the default branch each time it runs, eventually running newer versions of the code that were not audited by Datadog. Specifying a Git tag is better, but since they are not immutable, using a full length hash is recommended to make sure the action content is actually frozen to some reviewed state.
Be careful however, as even pinning an action by hash can be circumvented by attackers still. For instance, if an action relies on a Docker image which is itself not pinned to a digest, it becomes possible to alter its behaviour through the Docker image without actually changing its hash. You can learn more about this kind of attacks in Unpinnable Actions: How Malicious Code Can Sneak into Your GitHub Actions Workflows. Pinning actions by hash is still a good first line of defense against supply chain attacks.
Additionally, pinning by hash or tag means the action won’t benefit from newer version updates if any, including eventual security patches. Make sure to regularly check if newer versions for an action you use are available. For actions coming from a very trustworthy source, it can make sense to use a laxer pinning policy to benefit from updates as soon as possible.
.github/workflows/dotnet.yml
Outdated
| path: bin | ||
|
|
||
| - name: Download aarch64-unknown-linux-musl | ||
| uses: actions/download-artifact@v4 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🟠 Code Vulnerability
Workflow depends on a GitHub actions pinned by tag (...read more)
When using a third party action, one needs to provide its GitHub path (owner/project) and can eventually pin it to a Git ref (a branch name, a Git tag, or a commit hash).
No pinned Git ref means the action uses the latest commit of the default branch each time it runs, eventually running newer versions of the code that were not audited by Datadog. Specifying a Git tag is better, but since they are not immutable, using a full length hash is recommended to make sure the action content is actually frozen to some reviewed state.
Be careful however, as even pinning an action by hash can be circumvented by attackers still. For instance, if an action relies on a Docker image which is itself not pinned to a digest, it becomes possible to alter its behaviour through the Docker image without actually changing its hash. You can learn more about this kind of attacks in Unpinnable Actions: How Malicious Code Can Sneak into Your GitHub Actions Workflows. Pinning actions by hash is still a good first line of defense against supply chain attacks.
Additionally, pinning by hash or tag means the action won’t benefit from newer version updates if any, including eventual security patches. Make sure to regularly check if newer versions for an action you use are available. For actions coming from a very trustworthy source, it can make sense to use a laxer pinning policy to benefit from updates as soon as possible.
| ./windows/build-artifacts.sh ${{ env.OUTPUT_DIR }} ${{ matrix.target }} | ||
|
|
||
| - name: alpine:3.19 | ||
| uses: addnab/docker-run-action@v3 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🟠 Code Vulnerability
Workflow depends on a GitHub actions pinned by tag (...read more)
When using a third party action, one needs to provide its GitHub path (owner/project) and can eventually pin it to a Git ref (a branch name, a Git tag, or a commit hash).
No pinned Git ref means the action uses the latest commit of the default branch each time it runs, eventually running newer versions of the code that were not audited by Datadog. Specifying a Git tag is better, but since they are not immutable, using a full length hash is recommended to make sure the action content is actually frozen to some reviewed state.
Be careful however, as even pinning an action by hash can be circumvented by attackers still. For instance, if an action relies on a Docker image which is itself not pinned to a digest, it becomes possible to alter its behaviour through the Docker image without actually changing its hash. You can learn more about this kind of attacks in Unpinnable Actions: How Malicious Code Can Sneak into Your GitHub Actions Workflows. Pinning actions by hash is still a good first line of defense against supply chain attacks.
Additionally, pinning by hash or tag means the action won’t benefit from newer version updates if any, including eventual security patches. Make sure to regularly check if newer versions for an action you use are available. For actions coming from a very trustworthy source, it can make sense to use a laxer pinning policy to benefit from updates as soon as possible.
| path: ${{ env.PACKAGES_DIR }} | ||
|
|
||
| - name: ${{ matrix.container }} Test | ||
| uses: addnab/docker-run-action@v3 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🟠 Code Vulnerability
Workflow depends on a GitHub actions pinned by tag (...read more)
When using a third party action, one needs to provide its GitHub path (owner/project) and can eventually pin it to a Git ref (a branch name, a Git tag, or a commit hash).
No pinned Git ref means the action uses the latest commit of the default branch each time it runs, eventually running newer versions of the code that were not audited by Datadog. Specifying a Git tag is better, but since they are not immutable, using a full length hash is recommended to make sure the action content is actually frozen to some reviewed state.
Be careful however, as even pinning an action by hash can be circumvented by attackers still. For instance, if an action relies on a Docker image which is itself not pinned to a digest, it becomes possible to alter its behaviour through the Docker image without actually changing its hash. You can learn more about this kind of attacks in Unpinnable Actions: How Malicious Code Can Sneak into Your GitHub Actions Workflows. Pinning actions by hash is still a good first line of defense against supply chain attacks.
Additionally, pinning by hash or tag means the action won’t benefit from newer version updates if any, including eventual security patches. Make sure to regularly check if newer versions for an action you use are available. For actions coming from a very trustworthy source, it can make sense to use a laxer pinning policy to benefit from updates as soon as possible.
ganeshnj
force-pushed
the
ganeshnj/feat/linux-osx-nuget
branch
from
eb8b9e6 to
0fdcbb9
Compare
| uses: actions/checkout@v4 | ||
|
|
||
| - name: Download package | ||
| uses: actions/download-artifact@v4 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🟠 Code Vulnerability
Workflow depends on a GitHub actions pinned by tag (...read more)
When using a third party action, one needs to provide its GitHub path (owner/project) and can eventually pin it to a Git ref (a branch name, a Git tag, or a commit hash).
No pinned Git ref means the action uses the latest commit of the default branch each time it runs, eventually running newer versions of the code that were not audited by Datadog. Specifying a Git tag is better, but since they are not immutable, using a full length hash is recommended to make sure the action content is actually frozen to some reviewed state.
Be careful however, as even pinning an action by hash can be circumvented by attackers still. For instance, if an action relies on a Docker image which is itself not pinned to a digest, it becomes possible to alter its behaviour through the Docker image without actually changing its hash. You can learn more about this kind of attacks in Unpinnable Actions: How Malicious Code Can Sneak into Your GitHub Actions Workflows. Pinning actions by hash is still a good first line of defense against supply chain attacks.
Additionally, pinning by hash or tag means the action won’t benefit from newer version updates if any, including eventual security patches. Make sure to regularly check if newer versions for an action you use are available. For actions coming from a very trustworthy source, it can make sense to use a laxer pinning policy to benefit from updates as soon as possible.
|
Is this PR still relevant? |
What does this PR do?
This PR adds support for .NET Standard 2.0 in libdatadog nuget package for
win-x64andwin-x86.This is foundation of adding support for more platform in future ie
It also adds a github workflow to make sure, the libdatadog nuget package actually works on supported platforms.
The added readme clearly layout the structure of the package for posterity.
Motivation
Until now, libdatadog has been used directly in the native projects with static linking. Since we are moving from static linking as per new requirement for data-pipeline integration, we need to have support for .NET apps in libdatadog because Datadog.Trace is pure .NET project.
Hence, to keep the experience idiomatic to .NET developer, we should support .NET in libdatadog.
Additional Notes
There will be future PRs to add support for more platform as mentioned above.
I know are splitting the dynamic and static libraries in their own packages, we will update the docs once this change go official, currently this PR assumes it is same package.
How to test the change?