Split the tracer parts off from ext directory

[bwoebi]

Move all the things.
Drop a few obsolete things.
Change nearly no code.

• git data gets collected in ext/, but git object is collected in tracer/
• the sidecar is now always spawned, unconditionally

[datadog-prod-us1-5]

 

✨ Fix all issues with BitsAI

⚠️ Warnings

🚦 7 Pipeline jobs failed

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

🔧 Fix in code (Fix with Cursor).

Failed test: 'Read telemetry via composer' in tmp/build_extension/tests/ext/telemetry/composer.phpt with 29 out of 664 tests passing.

DataDog/apm-reliability/dd-trace-php | test_extension_ci: [8.1]     

🔧 Fix in code (Fix with Cursor).

Assertion failed in zend_hash.c:1012: `(zend_gc_refcount(&(ht)->gc) == 1) || ((ht)->u.flags & (1<<6))`

DataDog/apm-reliability/dd-trace-php | test_extension_ci: [8.4]     

🔧 Fix in code (Fix with Cursor).

Assertion failed in zend_hash.c:1098: (zend_gc_refcount(&(ht)->gc) == 1) || ((ht)->u.flags & (1<<6)) while processing debugger_log_probe_process_tags.

View all 7 failed jobs.

ℹ️ Info

No other issues found (see more)

🧪 All tests passed
❄️ No new flaky tests detected

🎯 Code Coverage (details)
• Patch Coverage: 73.53%
• Overall Coverage: 54.12% (-0.04%)

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎

_{This comment will be updated automatically if new data arrives.
🔗 Commit SHA: b0051dc | Docs | Datadog PR Page | Give us feedback!}

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

dd-trace-php/tracer/weakrefs.c

Line 3 in 7f32d1d

#include "compatibility.h"

Fix weakrefs include path after move to tracer/

After moving weakrefs.c to tracer/, it still includes "compatibility.h" as if it were in ext/. In this commit config.m4 also drops PHP_ADD_INCLUDE([$ext_srcdir/ext]), so for PHP 8.0/8.1 builds (where weakrefs.c is compiled) the header is no longer resolvable and the build fails. Use #include <ext/compatibility.h> (or restore/include the ext include path) to keep those builds working.

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Codex has been enabled to automatically 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 👍.

When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".

[pr-commenter]

Benchmarks [ profiler ]

Benchmark execution time: 2026-06-02 15:20:16

Comparing candidate commit b0051dc in PR branch bob/common-ext with baseline commit cd4e9ba in branch master.

Found 1 performance improvements and 0 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 27 metrics, 8 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:php-profiler-timeline-memory-with-profiler-and-timeline

• 🟩 cpu_system_time [-35.803ms; -8.998ms] or [-8.756%; -2.201%]

[pr-commenter]

Benchmarks [ appsec ]

Benchmark execution time: 2026-06-02 15:42:08

Comparing candidate commit b0051dc in PR branch bob/common-ext with baseline commit cd4e9ba 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 ----------------------------------'

[pr-commenter]

Benchmarks [ tracer ]

Benchmark execution time: 2026-06-02 16:19:04

Comparing candidate commit b0051dc in PR branch bob/common-ext with baseline commit cd4e9ba in branch master.

Found 1 performance improvements and 6 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 187 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:MessagePackSerializationBench/benchMessagePackSerialization

• 🟥 execution_time [+2.998µs; +5.182µs] or [+2.962%; +5.120%]

scenario:MessagePackSerializationBench/benchMessagePackSerialization-opcache

• 🟥 execution_time [+2.408µs; +3.952µs] or [+2.267%; +3.719%]

scenario:SamplingRuleMatchingBench/benchRegexMatching1

• 🟥 execution_time [+38.917ns; +126.683ns] or [+2.651%; +8.628%]

scenario:SamplingRuleMatchingBench/benchRegexMatching2

• 🟥 execution_time [+60.053ns; +143.347ns] or [+4.109%; +9.808%]

scenario:SamplingRuleMatchingBench/benchRegexMatching3

• 🟥 execution_time [+33.133ns; +130.867ns] or [+2.224%; +8.785%]

scenario:SamplingRuleMatchingBench/benchRegexMatching4

• 🟥 execution_time [+35.730ns; +119.270ns] or [+2.420%; +8.079%]

scenario:TraceSerializationBench/benchSerializeTrace

• 🟩 execution_time [-23.988µs; -8.512µs] or [-5.658%; -2.008%]

[github-actions]

Snapshots difference summary

The following differences have been observed in committed snapshots. It is meant to help the reviewer.
The diff is simplistic, so please check some files anyway while we improve it.

If you need to update snapshots, please refer to CONTRIBUTING.md

[Leiyks]

lgtm 👌

[Leiyks]

Shoudn't this one be in a #ifdef DDTRACE guard as well ?

[bwoebi]

Agree, let's fully ifdef this, gives compile warnings rather than runtime link failures.