fix tibco bw instrumentation for 5.16

[vandonr]

What Does This Do

A customer reported that instrumentation failed for Tibco BusinessWorks 5.16 with the following error:

Cannot assign com.tibco.pe.core.JobData arg0 to interface com.tibco.pe.plugin.ProcessContext

turns out this was not due to a signature change, but int introduction of a new (private) method that matched the selector as well, causing the whole instrumentation to fail.

Here are the methods in 5.16:

public final void addJob(Job job, String value, boolean flag);

Job addJob(JobData data) throws Exception; // new in 5.16

protected void removeJob(Job job, boolean flag1, boolean flag2);

I fixed it by adding a constraint matching the type we expect in the advice. Did the same for removeJob because it made sense.

Motivation

APMS-20455

Additional Notes

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: [PROJ-IDENT]

[dd-octo-sts]

Hi! 👋 Thanks for your pull request! 🎉

To help us review it, please make sure to:

• Add at least one type, and one component or instrumentation label to the pull request

If you need help, please check our contributing guidelines.

[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 2026-09-10T09:02:34.566138Z	fb30609	PR opened
🔒 Security Review	✅ Completed 2026-09-10T09:05:13.887926Z	fb30609	PR opened

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.

[datadog-datadog-prod-us1]

More details

The new matcher selects methods whose first argument implements ProcessContext. It excludes the incompatible Tibco 5.16 JobData overload.

Was this helpful? React 👍 or 👎

_{Open Bits AI session}

_{🤖 Datadog Autotest · Commit fb30609 · What is Autotest? · @DataDog review to ask questions · Any feedback? Reach out in #autotest}

[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	13.90 s	[-0.2%; +1.9%] (no difference)
startup:insecure-bank:tracing:Agent	12.92 s	13.03 s	[-1.6%; -0.1%] (maybe better)
startup:petclinic:appsec:Agent	17.58 s	17.52 s	[-0.6%; +1.3%] (no difference)
startup:petclinic:iast:Agent	17.47 s	17.62 s	[-1.7%; -0.0%] (maybe better)
startup:petclinic:profiling:Agent	17.59 s	17.44 s	[-0.3%; +2.0%] (no difference)
startup:petclinic:sca:Agent	16.98 s	17.54 s	[-7.5%; +1.1%] (no difference)
startup:petclinic:tracing:Agent	16.55 s	16.64 s	[-1.6%; +0.5%] (no difference)

Commit: 3eccb22e · 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.

[ValentinZakharov]

Assume it's tested

[vandonr]

Assume it's tested

narrator: it was not

😅 but I will before I merge, I pushed it to have a snapshot for the customer, and I'll take a look at tibco testing to test this

[vandonr]

Ok, I was able to run the tests in tibco-testing with the old 5.14 version, donfirming no regression, and also with 5.16, with the current latest release to reproduce the failure, and with the snapshot of the change to validate that it worked fine. I'll add a constraint that the methods need to be public like Andrea suggested, and then merge this

[dd-octo-sts]

/merge

[gh-worker-devflow-routing-ef8351]

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.

2026-09-11 11:13:53 UTC ℹ️ Start processing command /merge

---

2026-09-11 11:13:58 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: pull request added to the queue

The expected merge time in master is approximately 1h (p90).

---

2026-09-11 12:44:12 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: This merge request was merged