fix(crashtracking): check fields and exclude uuid for has_data

[gyuheon0h]

What does this PR do?

Excludes uuid field from CrashInfoBuilder when checking for has_data

Motivation

Previously, the has_data check would compare the whole struct against Self::default(). However, uuid is generated when the builder is created, so this would always return true

Additional Notes

Anything else we should know when reviewing?

How to test the change?

Describe here in detail how the change can be validated.

[gyuheon0h]

• fix(crashtracking): check fields and exclude uuid for has_data #2322 👈 (View in Graphite)
• main

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

[github-actions]

📚 Documentation Check Results

⚠️ 1104 documentation warning(s) found

📦 libdd-crashtracker - 1104 warning(s)

---

Updated: 2026-08-05 17:31:44 UTC | Commit: bda4e34 | missing-docs job results

[github-actions]

🔒 Cargo Deny Results

⚠️ 2 issue(s) found, showing only errors (advisories, bans, sources)

📦 libdd-crashtracker - 2 error(s)

Show output

error[vulnerability]: Invalid pointer dereference in `fmt::Pointer` impl for `Atomic` and `Shared` when the underlying pointer is invalid
   ┌─ /home/runner/work/libdatadog/libdatadog/Cargo.lock:59:1
   │
59 │ crossbeam-epoch 0.9.18 registry+https://github.com/rust-lang/crates.io-index
   │ ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ security vulnerability detected
   │
   ├ ID: RUSTSEC-2026-0204
   ├ Advisory: https://rustsec.org/advisories/RUSTSEC-2026-0204
   ├ Affected versions of `fmt::Display` dereference the underlying pointer. This causes a invalid pointer dereference e.g., when a pointer created with `Atomic::null` or `Shared::null`. `fmt::Debug` impls and pre-0.9 `fmt::Display` impls, which do not dereference pointers, are not affected by this issue.
   ├ Announcement: https://github.com/crossbeam-rs/crossbeam/pull/1276
   ├ Solution: Upgrade to >=0.9.20 (try `cargo update -p crossbeam-epoch`)
   ├ crossbeam-epoch v0.9.18
     └── crossbeam-deque v0.8.5
         └── rayon-core v1.12.1
             └── rayon v1.10.0
                 └── criterion v0.5.1
                     ├── (dev) libdd-crashtracker v1.0.0
                     └── (dev) libdd-ddsketch v1.1.0
                         └── libdd-telemetry v6.0.0
                             └── libdd-crashtracker v1.0.0 (*)

error[unsound]: Rand is unsound with a custom logger using `rand::rng()`
    ┌─ /home/runner/work/libdatadog/libdatadog/Cargo.lock:204:1
    │
204 │ rand 0.8.5 registry+https://github.com/rust-lang/crates.io-index
    │ ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ unsound advisory detected
    │
    ├ ID: RUSTSEC-2026-0097
    ├ Advisory: https://rustsec.org/advisories/RUSTSEC-2026-0097
    ├ It has been reported (by [@lopopolo](https://github.com/lopopolo)) that the `rand` library is [unsound](https://rust-lang.github.io/unsafe-code-guidelines/glossary.html#soundness-of-code--of-a-library) (i.e. that safe code using the public API can cause Undefined Behaviour) when all the following conditions are met:
      
      - The `log` and `thread_rng` features are enabled
      - A [custom logger](https://docs.rs/log/latest/log/#implementing-a-logger) is defined
      - The custom logger accesses `rand::rng()` (previously `rand::thread_rng()`) and calls any `TryRng` (previously `RngCore`) methods on `ThreadRng`
      - The `ThreadRng` (attempts to) reseed while called from the custom logger (this happens every 64 kB of generated data)
      - Trace-level logging is enabled or warn-level logging is enabled and the random source (the `getrandom` crate) is unable to provide a new seed
      
      `TryRng` (previously `RngCore`) methods for `ThreadRng` use `unsafe` code to cast `*mut BlockRng<ReseedingCore>` to `&mut BlockRng<ReseedingCore>`. When all the above conditions are met this results in an aliased mutable reference, violating the Stacked Borrows rules. Miri is able to detect this violation in sample code. Since construction of [aliased mutable references is Undefined Behaviour](https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/nomicon/references.html), the behaviour of optimized builds is hard to predict.
    ├ Announcement: https://github.com/rust-random/rand/pull/1763
    ├ Solution: Upgrade to >=0.10.1 OR <0.10.0, >=0.9.3 OR <0.9.0, >=0.8.6 (try `cargo update -p rand`)
    ├ rand v0.8.5
      ├── libdd-common v5.1.0
      │   ├── libdd-capabilities-impl v3.0.0
      │   │   ├── libdd-crashtracker v1.0.0
      │   │   ├── libdd-shared-runtime v2.0.0
      │   │   │   └── libdd-telemetry v6.0.0
      │   │   │       └── libdd-crashtracker v1.0.0 (*)
      │   │   └── (dev) libdd-telemetry v6.0.0 (*)
      │   ├── (build) libdd-crashtracker v1.0.0 (*)
      │   ├── libdd-shared-runtime v2.0.0 (*)
      │   └── libdd-telemetry v6.0.0 (*)
      ├── libdd-crashtracker v1.0.0 (*)
      └── (dev) libdd-ddsketch v1.1.0
          └── libdd-telemetry v6.0.0 (*)

advisories FAILED, bans ok, sources ok

---

Updated: 2026-08-05 17:31:12 UTC | Commit: bda4e34 | dependency-check job results

[datadog-official]

🎉 All green!

🧪 All tests passed
❄️ No new flaky tests detected

🎯 Code Coverage (details)
• Patch Coverage: 100.00%
• Overall Coverage: 75.07% (+0.00%)

_{This comment will be updated automatically if new data arrives.
🔗 Commit SHA: 55c8d8c | Docs | Datadog PR Page | Give us feedback!}

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: d9cc80831c

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".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Don't drop streams that only reached config

When the collector starts a real crash report, emit_crashreport writes and flushes the config before message/siginfo/kind, and process_line stores that config outside CrashInfoBuilder. If the collector exits or the pipe closes after the config block but before the first builder field, this new comparison leaves has_data() false, so receive_report_from_stream returns Ok(None) and the receiver silently treats a partial crash report as normal termination instead of surfacing the incomplete report/error. Consider tracking that any crash-report section was received, or include config.is_some() in the post-loop decision.

AGENTS.md reference: AGENTS.md:L71-L73

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

[pr-commenter]

Benchmarks

Comparison

Benchmark execution time: 2026-08-05 17:45:00

Comparing candidate commit d9cc808 in PR branch gyuheon0h/has-data-field-check with baseline commit 8b3d8ee in branch main.

Found 3 performance improvements and 0 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 137 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:vec_map/get_hit/128

• 🟩 execution_time [-1.112µs; -1.090µs] or [-7.530%; -7.384%]
• 🟩 throughput [+692134.104op/s; +704569.516op/s] or [+7.984%; +8.127%]

scenario:vec_map/get_miss/64

• 🟩 execution_time [-20.223ns; -20.122ns] or [-42.052%; -41.841%]

Benchmark execution time: 2026-08-05 17:54:59

Comparing candidate commit d9cc808 in PR branch gyuheon0h/has-data-field-check with baseline commit 8b3d8ee in branch main.

Found 3 performance improvements and 6 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 159 metrics, 10 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:alloc_free/system/256

• 🟥 execution_time [+1.211ns; +1.274ns] or [+8.493%; +8.929%]

scenario:alloc_free/system/4096

• 🟥 execution_time [+5.265ns; +5.446ns] or [+6.060%; +6.268%]

scenario:glob_matcher/unicode_exact_match/wall_time

• 🟥 execution_time [+3.270ns; +3.389ns] or [+4.368%; +4.526%]

scenario:glob_matcher/unicode_pattern_ascii_subject/wall_time

• 🟥 execution_time [+4.925ns; +5.008ns] or [+5.488%; +5.580%]

scenario:glob_matcher/unicode_pattern_wildcard_match/wall_time

• 🟥 execution_time [+6.183ns; +6.267ns] or [+5.013%; +5.081%]

scenario:profiler_attached/fast_path_system/4096

• 🟥 execution_time [+13.846ns; +14.053ns] or [+13.276%; +13.474%]

scenario:profiler_attached/slow_path_system/4096

• 🟩 execution_time [-8.851ns; -8.686ns] or [-5.763%; -5.655%]

scenario:trace_buffer/2_senders/no_delay

• 🟩 execution_time [-91.730µs; -75.401µs] or [-5.134%; -4.220%]
• 🟩 throughput [+44623.427op/s; +54349.458op/s] or [+4.427%; +5.391%]

Candidate

Omitted due to size.

Baseline

Omitted due to size.

[danielsn]

But please set a description and motivation for this PR

[dd-octo-sts]

Artifact Size Benchmark Report

aarch64-alpine-linux-musl

Artifact	Baseline	Commit	Change
/aarch64-alpine-linux-musl/lib/libdatadog_profiling.a	87.84 MB	87.84 MB	+0% (+1.24 KB) 👌
/aarch64-alpine-linux-musl/lib/libdatadog_profiling.so	8.07 MB	8.07 MB	0% (0 B) 👌

aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu

Artifact	Baseline	Commit	Change
/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/lib/libdatadog_profiling.a	98.97 MB	98.98 MB	+0% (+1.21 KB) 👌
/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/lib/libdatadog_profiling.so	10.88 MB	10.88 MB	0% (0 B) 👌

libdatadog-x64-windows

Artifact	Baseline	Commit	Change
/libdatadog-x64-windows/debug/dynamic/datadog_profiling_ffi.dll	26.21 MB	26.21 MB	0% (0 B) 👌
/libdatadog-x64-windows/debug/dynamic/datadog_profiling_ffi.lib	89.92 KB	89.92 KB	0% (0 B) 👌
/libdatadog-x64-windows/debug/dynamic/datadog_profiling_ffi.pdb	188.66 MB	188.66 MB	0% (0 B) 👌
/libdatadog-x64-windows/debug/static/datadog_profiling_ffi.lib	985.57 MB	985.57 MB	+0% (+2.13 KB) 👌
/libdatadog-x64-windows/release/dynamic/datadog_profiling_ffi.dll	8.56 MB	8.56 MB	0% (0 B) 👌
/libdatadog-x64-windows/release/dynamic/datadog_profiling_ffi.lib	89.92 KB	89.92 KB	0% (0 B) 👌
/libdatadog-x64-windows/release/dynamic/datadog_profiling_ffi.pdb	25.22 MB	25.22 MB	0% (0 B) 👌
/libdatadog-x64-windows/release/static/datadog_profiling_ffi.lib	50.23 MB	50.23 MB	0% (0 B) 👌

libdatadog-x86-windows

Artifact	Baseline	Commit	Change
/libdatadog-x86-windows/debug/dynamic/datadog_profiling_ffi.dll	22.84 MB	22.84 MB	0% (0 B) 👌
/libdatadog-x86-windows/debug/dynamic/datadog_profiling_ffi.lib	91.33 KB	91.33 KB	0% (0 B) 👌
/libdatadog-x86-windows/debug/dynamic/datadog_profiling_ffi.pdb	193.44 MB	193.44 MB	0% (0 B) 👌
/libdatadog-x86-windows/debug/static/datadog_profiling_ffi.lib	974.34 MB	974.34 MB	+0% (+2.16 KB) 👌
/libdatadog-x86-windows/release/dynamic/datadog_profiling_ffi.dll	6.61 MB	6.61 MB	0% (0 B) 👌
/libdatadog-x86-windows/release/dynamic/datadog_profiling_ffi.lib	91.33 KB	91.33 KB	0% (0 B) 👌
/libdatadog-x86-windows/release/dynamic/datadog_profiling_ffi.pdb	27.12 MB	27.12 MB	0% (0 B) 👌
/libdatadog-x86-windows/release/static/datadog_profiling_ffi.lib	47.83 MB	47.83 MB	0% (0 B) 👌

x86_64-alpine-linux-musl

Artifact	Baseline	Commit	Change
/x86_64-alpine-linux-musl/lib/libdatadog_profiling.a	78.21 MB	78.22 MB	+0% (+504 B) 👌
/x86_64-alpine-linux-musl/lib/libdatadog_profiling.so	9.00 MB	9.00 MB	0% (0 B) 👌

x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu

Artifact	Baseline	Commit	Change
/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/lib/libdatadog_profiling.a	93.85 MB	93.85 MB	+0% (+472 B) 👌
/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/lib/libdatadog_profiling.so	10.97 MB	10.97 MB	+.03% (+4.00 KB) 🔍