chore: improve IPC typing and error handling

[P403n1x87]

Description

We improve the typing of the IPC utilities as well as the error handling of the expected failure modes to reduce the noise level in telemetry data.

[cit-pr-commenter-54b7da]

Circular import analysis

⚠️ Existing circular imports

There are 1 circular imports that already exist on the base branch and have not been changed by this PR.

ddtrace.errortracking._handled_exceptions.bytecode_injector -> ddtrace.errortracking._handled_exceptions.callbacks -> ddtrace.errortracking._handled_exceptions.collector -> ddtrace.errortracking._handled_exceptions.bytecode_reporting -> ddtrace.errortracking._handled_exceptions.bytecode_injector

[cit-pr-commenter-54b7da]

Dependency direction analysis

⚠️ Existing dependency direction violations

There are 218 dependency direction violations that already exist on the base branch and have not been changed by this PR.

Show existing violations (showing 5 of 218 highest severity)

ddtrace.internal.tracemethods -×-> ddtrace.trace  (internal-core -> product:tracing, score=133)
ddtrace.llmobs._integrations.langchain -×-> ddtrace.trace  (product:llmobs -> product:tracing, score=131)
ddtrace.llmobs._integrations.anthropic -×-> ddtrace.trace  (product:llmobs -> product:tracing, score=131)
ddtrace.llmobs._integrations.pydantic_ai -×-> ddtrace.trace  (product:llmobs -> product:tracing, score=131)
ddtrace.profiling.collector.stack -×-> ddtrace.trace  (product:profiling -> product:tracing, score=131)

To see all violations, download the layers-base.json and layers-pr.json artifacts from this CI job and run:

uv run --script scripts/import-analysis/layers.py compare layers-base.json layers-pr.json

[cit-pr-commenter-54b7da]

Codeowners resolved as

Resolved from the full PR diff against main using the target branch CODEOWNERS file.
CODEOWNERS team requests not listed below are not required by the current file set.

No remaining files require a CODEOWNERS review.

[datadog-official]

🎉 All green!

🧪 All tests passed
❄️ No new flaky tests detected

_{This comment will be updated automatically if new data arrives.
🔗 Commit SHA: 349549e | Docs | View more details | Give us feedback!}

[pr-commenter]

Benchmarks

Benchmark execution time: 2026-09-15 14:14:31

Comparing candidate commit 349549e in PR branch chore/ipc-improve-typing-error-handling with baseline commit f006b59 in branch main.

📊 Benchmarking dashboard

Found 0 performance improvements and 1 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 572 metrics, 10 unstable metrics, 5 known flaky benchmarks, 19 flaky benchmarks without significant changes.

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:iastaspects-lstrip_aspect

• 🟥 execution_time [+42.421µs; +47.987µs] or [+15.144%; +17.131%]

Unstable benchmarks

These benchmarks have a confidence interval too wide to call a change; treat them as noise rather than signal.

scenario:coreapiscenario-context_with_data_listeners

• unstable execution_time [-660.924ns; +821.053ns] or [-5.968%; +7.414%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_1_listener

• unstable execution_time [-37.474ns; +28.679ns] or [-6.076%; +4.650%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_50_listeners

• unstable execution_time [-2067.734ns; +1195.669ns] or [-12.060%; +6.974%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_exception_listeners

• unstable execution_time [-1034.161ns; +1412.320ns] or [-7.972%; +10.888%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_listeners

• unstable execution_time [-326.078ns; +319.091ns] or [-8.831%; +8.642%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_no_args_listeners

• unstable execution_time [-314.998ns; +189.858ns] or [-10.660%; +6.425%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_with_results_1_listener

• unstable execution_time [-52.663ns; +98.907ns] or [-4.580%; +8.602%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_with_results_50_listeners

• unstable execution_time [-3997.480ns; +3983.295ns] or [-9.721%; +9.686%]

scenario:coreapiscenario-core_dispatch_with_results_listeners

• unstable execution_time [-684.917ns; +856.770ns] or [-8.447%; +10.566%]

scenario:packagesupdateimporteddependencies-import_many_stdlib_cached

• unstable execution_time [-55904.526ns; +55727.044ns] or [-9.565%; +9.534%]

Known flaky benchmarks

These benchmarks are marked as flaky and will not trigger a failure. Modify FLAKY_BENCHMARKS_REGEX to control which benchmarks are marked as flaky.

scenario:httppropagationinject-ids_only

• 🟥 execution_time [+2.614µs; +2.776µs] or [+15.762%; +16.736%]

scenario:iastaspectsospath-ospathbasename_aspect

• 🟥 execution_time [+117.191µs; +123.763µs] or [+30.296%; +31.995%]

scenario:span-start

• 🟥 execution_time [+2.060ms; +2.298ms] or [+14.975%; +16.699%]

scenario:telemetryaddmetric-1-count-metric-1-times

• 🟥 execution_time [+592.810ns; +631.660ns] or [+21.473%; +22.880%]

scenario:tracer-small

• 🟥 execution_time [+35.377µs; +37.754µs] or [+11.293%; +12.052%]

Known flaky benchmarks without significant changes:

• scenario:errortrackingflasksqli-baseline
• scenario:flasksimple-iast-get
• scenario:iastaspects-casefold_aspect
• scenario:iastaspects-casefold_noaspect
• scenario:iastaspects-index_aspect
• scenario:iastaspects-ljust_noaspect
• scenario:iastaspects-lower_aspect
• scenario:iastaspects-replace_aspect
• scenario:iastaspects-rstrip_aspect
• scenario:iastaspects-swapcase_aspect
• scenario:iastaspects-title_noaspect
• scenario:iastaspects-translate_aspect
• scenario:iastaspects-translate_noaspect
• scenario:iastaspects-upper_noaspect
• scenario:iastaspectssplit-rsplit_aspect
• scenario:packagespackageforrootmodulemapping-cache_off
• scenario:packagespackageforrootmodulemapping-cache_on
• scenario:sethttpmeta-all-enabled
• scenario:telemetryaddmetric-record-100-metrics

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 9e730b20c1

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".

[P403n1x87]

/merge -m squash

[gh-worker-devflow-routing-ef8351]

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.

2026-09-15 13:42:03 UTC ℹ️ Start processing command /merge -m squash

---

2026-09-15 13:42:11 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: Pull request is not mergeable yet

It will be processed automatically as soon as GitHub reports it as mergeable. View in MergeQueue UI.

• Run /code blockers to see what is blocking it.
• Run /remove to cancel it.

---

2026-09-15 14:34:28 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: merge request added to the queue

The expected merge time in main is approximately 54m (p90).

---

2026-09-15 15:04:20 UTC ❌ MergeQueue: The build pipeline contains failing jobs for this merge request

Build pipeline has failing jobs for 7d23bdd:

• llmobs/llmobs 3/10

⚠️ Do NOT retry failed jobs directly (why?).

What to do next?

• Investigate the failures and when ready, re-add your pull request to the queue!
• If your PR checks are green, try to rebase/merge. It might be because the CI run is a bit old.
• Any question, go check the FAQ.

Details

Since those jobs are not marked as being allowed to fail, the pipeline will most likely fail.
Therefore, and to allow other builds to be processed, this merge request has been rejected and the pipeline got canceled.