[PerfectSlayer]

What Does This Do

Adds a checkTestJvmConstraints task to every project with test JVM constraints, run by check. It fails when no JVM can satisfy a test task's testJvmConstraints:

• every includeJdk entry is outside the version range and not forced; or
• minJavaVersion is above maxJavaVersion, with no forceJdk entry left to run.

Motivation

A test task with unsatisfiable constraints is skipped on every JVM. The CI job still passes, so its tests silently stop running.

This happened twice, and both went unnoticed for a long time:

• profiling-controller-oracle: includeJdk = ['ORACLE8'] while the minimum is Java 11 (fixed by Restore Oracle JDK 8 profiler controller tests #13185).
• ignite-2.0 latest-dep tests: minimum Java 11, maximum Java 8 (fixed by Run Ignite latest-dep tests on Java 11+ #13207).

The check fails the existing check_* CI jobs as soon as such a combination is introduced.

Additional Notes

• Merge after Restore Oracle JDK 8 profiler controller tests #13185 and Run Ignite latest-dep tests on Java 11+ #13207. Until both are merged, this check fails check_profiling and check_inst on exactly those four tasks. Across all 543 projects, those are the only failures.
• The check uses the same rules as the runtime onlyIf: they now share one function, isTestJvmAllowed.
• The task needs no compilation and runs in about 30 seconds across the whole build.

Contributor Checklist

• Format the title according to the contribution guidelines
• Assign the type: and (comp: or inst:) labels in addition to any other useful labels
• Avoid using close, fix, or any linking keywords when referencing an issue
  Use solves instead, and assign the PR milestone to the issue
• Update the CODEOWNERS file on source file addition, migration, or deletion
• Update public documentation with any new configuration flags or behaviors
• Once approved, use merge queue to merge the PR

Jira ticket: APMLP-2187

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[datadog-prod-us1-3]

🎯 Code Coverage (details)
• Patch Coverage: 100.00%
• Overall Coverage: 59.97% (+0.00%)

_{This comment will be updated automatically if new data arrives.
🔗 Commit SHA: 42db38d | Docs | Give us feedback!}

[dd-octo-sts]

🟢 Java Benchmark SLOs — All performance SLOs passed

Suite	Status
Startup	🟢 pass

SLO thresholds are defined here based on automatically generated metrics. A warning is raised when results are within 5% of the threshold.

PR vs. master results

Scenario	Candidate	master	Δ (95% CI of mean)
startup:insecure-bank:iast:Agent	14.02 s	14.01 s	[-0.7%; +0.8%] (no difference)
startup:insecure-bank:tracing:Agent	13.00 s	12.99 s	[-0.7%; +0.8%] (no difference)
startup:petclinic:appsec:Agent	17.71 s	17.53 s	[+0.2%; +1.8%] (maybe worse)
startup:petclinic:iast:Agent	17.46 s	17.56 s	[-1.3%; +0.1%] (no difference)
startup:petclinic:profiling:Agent	17.30 s	17.29 s	[-1.0%; +1.2%] (no difference)
startup:petclinic:sca:Agent	17.02 s	17.48 s	[-6.8%; +1.6%] (no difference)
startup:petclinic:tracing:Agent	16.55 s	16.77 s	[-2.2%; -0.4%] (maybe better)

Commit: 42db38d6 · CI Pipeline · Benchmarking Platform UI

---

Load and DaCapo benchmarks can be triggered manually in the GitLab pipeline. Results will appear in the Benchmarking Platform UI after completion.

[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 2026-11-04T12:17:20.983783Z	609dac6	Draft marked ready
🔒 Security Review	✅ Completed 2026-11-04T12:14:41.484515Z	609dac6	Draft marked ready

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.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 609dac6ad6

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".

[datadog-prod-us1-3]

A versionless JVM alias can make the new check accept contradictory Java bounds, leaving tests silently skipped on every JVM.

_{Open Bits AI session}

_{🤖 Bits Code Review · Commit 609dac6}

[PerfectSlayer]

@DataDog review

[datadog-prod-us1-3]

More details

The shared eligibility logic preserves exclusion precedence over forced JDKs, and the checker handles the discussed tip and versionless-name contradictions. Confidence is limited to static inspection because Gradle tests were not executed.

Was this helpful? React 👍 or 👎

_{Open Bits AI session}

_{🤖 Bits Code Review · Commit 63d8dd7}

[bric3]

What about replacing "contradictory" with "unsatisfiable" which looks more precise in this context ?

My comments concern regression coverage for forceJdk=[tip] although don't seem blocking.

Running this check, exposed two projects

• profiling-controller-oracle, minimum is Java 11, but only ORACLE8 was allowed ; fixed by #13185
• ignite-2.0, latest dep tests had minimum of Java 11 but a maximum Java 8, actually the same reported in check_inst 3/4

Pre-approving

[PerfectSlayer]

Thanks @bric3. Switched to "unsatisfiable" in 5892d90: function name, task description, docs and PR title.

[PerfectSlayer]

Great, thanks for the feedback.
Waiting for #13185 #13207 #13206 to be merged first :)