Report explicitly skipped Maven test runs as skipped

[juan-fernandez]

What Does This Do

Report Maven test modules as skip, with a test.skip_reason, when their resolved skipTests or skip configuration is enabled, Surefire/Failsafe's legacy skipExec is enabled, or Failsafe's skipITs is enabled. Existing status propagation then marks an all-skipped session as skip.

Motivation

Surefire and Failsafe handle explicit test skipping inside the goal and complete successfully. Maven therefore calls mojoSucceeded, not mojoSkipped. Since the SDK initializes test modules as pass, commands such as mvn test -DskipTests could report passing modules and sessions even though no tests ran.

Additional Notes

• Use resolved plugin configuration so POM overrides are respected. Normal and failed executions retain their existing behavior; unexplained empty sessions are not marked skipped.
• Cover skipTests, skip, legacy skipExec (maven.test.skip.exec), and Failsafe skipITs, false values, and POM overrides in both directions. Verify that skipped integration tests do not hide passing unit tests and that an unrelated Surefire skipITs element is ignored.
• Verification: 22 instrumentation cases pass with Maven 3.2.5 / Java 11 and with Maven 3.10.0-rc-1 / Java 25 (44 total). Skip regressions were verified to fail before their respective fixes, including the two new skipExec cases. Module spotlessCheck passes.

test-environment-branch: daniel.mohedano/java-snapshot-updates

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: N/A

[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 2026-09-25T13:44:15.175189Z	2696a06	Manual request
🔒 Security Review	✅ Completed 2026-09-25T13:44:51.848508Z	2696a06	Manual request

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: fb79f325e1

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-official]

Failsafe’s standard skipITs configuration bypasses the new checks, leaving explicitly skipped integration-test modules reported as passing.

_{Open Bits AI session}

_{🤖 Bits Code Review · Commit fb79f32 · @DataDog review to ask questions}

[cit-pr-commenter-54b7da]

CI Visibility Test Environment - sbt-scalatest

Job Status: 🟢 success

Scenario	This PR (%)	7d median	Δ 7d	30d median	Δ 30d	runs (7d/30d)
agent	55.50	55.43	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.07	55.43	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.07	64/232
agentEvpProxy	56.16	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	-

Baseline: median of @test.tracer_overhead on main (gitlab) over the last 7/30 days, per OSS project & scenario. Δ = this PR − baseline median; red ▲ = more overhead, green ▽ = less overhead than baseline.

Tests run to verify that CI Visibility behavior has not regressed in the current PR.

[cit-pr-commenter-54b7da]

CI Visibility Test Environment - nebula-release-plugin

Job Status: 🟢 success

Scenario	This PR (%)	7d median	Δ 7d	30d median	Δ 30d	runs (7d/30d)
agent	37.17	37.15	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.02	36.42	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.75	35/126
agentless	35.81	35.70	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.11	35.70	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.11	27/118
agentlessCodeCoverage	45.22	45.38	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -0.16	44.48	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.74	27/118
agentlessLineCoverage	56.50	56.55	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -0.05	55.43	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +1.07	27/119

Baseline: median of @test.tracer_overhead on main (gitlab) over the last 7/30 days, per OSS project & scenario. Δ = this PR − baseline median; red ▲ = more overhead, green ▽ = less overhead than baseline.

Tests run to verify that CI Visibility behavior has not regressed in the current PR.

[cit-pr-commenter-54b7da]

CI Visibility Test Environment - pass4s

Job Status: 🟢 success

Scenario	This PR (%)	7d median	Δ 7d	30d median	Δ 30d	runs (7d/30d)
agent	11.19	11.65	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -0.46	9.73	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +1.46	29/108
agentless	10.18	9.35	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.83	9.35	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.83	21/100
agentlessCodeCoverage	17.41	17.03	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.38	16.04	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +1.37	20/95

Baseline: median of @test.tracer_overhead on main (gitlab) over the last 7/30 days, per OSS project & scenario. Δ = this PR − baseline median; red ▲ = more overhead, green ▽ = less overhead than baseline.

Tests run to verify that CI Visibility behavior has not regressed in the current PR.

[cit-pr-commenter-54b7da]

CI Visibility Test Environment - heliboard

Job Status: 🟢 success

Scenario	This PR (%)	7d median	Δ 7d	30d median	Δ 30d	runs (7d/30d)
agent	10.72	10.13	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.59	10.13	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.59	25/112

Baseline: median of @test.tracer_overhead on main (gitlab) over the last 7/30 days, per OSS project & scenario. Δ = this PR − baseline median; red ▲ = more overhead, green ▽ = less overhead than baseline.

Tests run to verify that CI Visibility behavior has not regressed in the current PR.

[cit-pr-commenter-54b7da]

CI Visibility Test Environment - netflix-zuul

Job Status: 🟢 success

Scenario	This PR (%)	7d median	Δ 7d	30d median	Δ 30d	runs (7d/30d)
agent	89.07	87.80	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +1.27	87.80	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +1.27	35/124
agentless	83.16	81.05	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +2.11	81.05	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +2.11	26/112
agentlessCodeCoverage	97.00	97.04	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -0.04	95.12	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +1.88	26/112
agentlessLineCoverage	112.41	111.62	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.79	111.62	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.79	26/117

Baseline: median of @test.tracer_overhead on main (gitlab) over the last 7/30 days, per OSS project & scenario. Δ = this PR − baseline median; red ▲ = more overhead, green ▽ = less overhead than baseline.

Tests run to verify that CI Visibility behavior has not regressed in the current PR.

[cit-pr-commenter-54b7da]

CI Visibility Test Environment - reactive-streams-jvm

Job Status: 🟢 success

Scenario	This PR (%)	7d median	Δ 7d	30d median	Δ 30d	runs (7d/30d)
agent	22.16	22.09	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.07	21.65	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.51	33/132
agentless	19.70	19.20	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.50	19.20	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.50	23/115
agentlessCodeCoverage	19.06	19.99	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -0.93	19.99	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -0.93	23/114
agentlessLineCoverage	26.98	27.52	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -0.54	26.98	$\color{gray}{\bullet}$ 0.00	15/59

Baseline: median of @test.tracer_overhead on main (gitlab) over the last 7/30 days, per OSS project & scenario. Δ = this PR − baseline median; red ▲ = more overhead, green ▽ = less overhead than baseline.

Tests run to verify that CI Visibility behavior has not regressed in the current PR.

[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	13.93 s	13.96 s	[-0.9%; +0.4%] (no difference)
startup:insecure-bank:tracing:Agent	12.98 s	13.01 s	[-0.9%; +0.4%] (no difference)
startup:petclinic:appsec:Agent	17.52 s	17.25 s	[+0.7%; +2.5%] (maybe worse)
startup:petclinic:iast:Agent	17.44 s	17.41 s	[-0.6%; +1.0%] (no difference)
startup:petclinic:profiling:Agent	17.37 s	16.66 s	[-0.2%; +8.7%] (no difference)
startup:petclinic:sca:Agent	17.58 s	17.48 s	[-0.4%; +1.6%] (no difference)
startup:petclinic:tracing:Agent	16.70 s	16.31 s	[-1.9%; +6.7%] (no difference)

Commit: b1256af9 · 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.

[cit-pr-commenter-54b7da]

CI Visibility Test Environment - sonar-kotlin

Job Status: 🟢 success

Scenario	This PR (%)	7d median	Δ 7d	30d median	Δ 30d	runs (7d/30d)
agent	14.90	13.40	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +1.50	12.87	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +2.03	35/130
agentless	12.60	12.12	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.48	11.88	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.72	25/113
agentlessCodeCoverage	15.63	15.11	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.52	15.11	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.52	25/113
agentlessLineCoverage	18.46	17.38	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +1.08	17.38	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +1.08	25/114

Baseline: median of @test.tracer_overhead on main (gitlab) over the last 7/30 days, per OSS project & scenario. Δ = this PR − baseline median; red ▲ = more overhead, green ▽ = less overhead than baseline.

Tests run to verify that CI Visibility behavior has not regressed in the current PR.

[cit-pr-commenter-54b7da]

CI Visibility Test Environment - jolokia

Job Status: 🟢 success

Scenario	This PR (%)	7d median	Δ 7d	30d median	Δ 30d	runs (7d/30d)
agent	96.24	93.23	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +3.01	95.12	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +1.12	33/130
agentless	91.29	89.58	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +1.71	89.58	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +1.71	25/121
agentlessCodeCoverage	100.99	99.00	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +1.99	99.00	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +1.99	25/121
agentlessLineCoverage	102.06	101.00	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +1.06	101.00	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +1.06	28/127

Baseline: median of @test.tracer_overhead on main (gitlab) over the last 7/30 days, per OSS project & scenario. Δ = this PR − baseline median; red ▲ = more overhead, green ▽ = less overhead than baseline.

Tests run to verify that CI Visibility behavior has not regressed in the current PR.

[cit-pr-commenter-54b7da]

CI Visibility Test Environment - okhttp

Job Status: 🟢 success

Scenario	This PR (%)	7d median	Δ 7d	30d median	Δ 30d	runs (7d/30d)
agent	21.68	20.39	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +1.29	19.99	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +1.69	31/119
agentless	20.52	20.39	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.13	19.59	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.93	23/108
agentlessCodeCoverage	22.74	23.45	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -0.71	22.54	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.20	23/109
agentlessLineCoverage	40.09	39.45	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.64	38.67	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +1.42	23/110

Baseline: median of @test.tracer_overhead on main (gitlab) over the last 7/30 days, per OSS project & scenario. Δ = this PR − baseline median; red ▲ = more overhead, green ▽ = less overhead than baseline.

Tests run to verify that CI Visibility behavior has not regressed in the current PR.

[cit-pr-commenter-54b7da]

CI Visibility Test Environment - spring_boot

Job Status: 🟢 success

Scenario	This PR (%)	7d median	Δ 7d	30d median	Δ 30d	runs (7d/30d)
agent	17.05	16.36	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.69	16.36	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.69	31/117
agentless	9.82	9.92	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -0.10	9.92	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -0.10	23/107
agentlessCodeCoverage	13.96	13.67	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.29	13.40	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.56	23/107
agentlessLineCoverage	23.15	22.54	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +0.61	22.09	$\color{red}{\blacktriangle}$ +1.06	24/109

Baseline: median of @test.tracer_overhead on main (gitlab) over the last 7/30 days, per OSS project & scenario. Δ = this PR − baseline median; red ▲ = more overhead, green ▽ = less overhead than baseline.

Tests run to verify that CI Visibility behavior has not regressed in the current PR.

[daniel-mohedano]

Let's update the code and tests as codex suggests to also consider skipITs but overall LGTM!

[juan-fernandez]

/datadog autotest review
@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

🛡️ Codex Security Review · Automatically triggered

Security review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 84e02dc372

View security finding report

Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex.

ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHub

This is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:

• You comment "@codex security review"
• A regular code review gets triggered (for example, "@codex review" or when a PR is opened), and you’re opted in so security review runs alongside code review

Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 84e02dc372

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-official]

Surefire and Failsafe executions skipped through the supported deprecated skipExec parameter still remain reported as passing, leaving one explicit-skip path unhandled.

_{Open Bits AI session}

_{🤖 Bits Code Review · Commit 84e02dc · @DataDog review to ask questions}

[cit-pr-commenter-54b7da]

CI Visibility Test Environment - sonar-java

Job Status: 🟢 success

Scenario	This PR (%)	7d median	Δ 7d	30d median	Δ 30d	runs (7d/30d)
agent	8.86	13.40	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -4.54	13.94	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -5.08	32/130
agentless	7.47	8.29	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -0.82	11.65	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -4.18	25/122
agentlessCodeCoverage	66.05	74.82	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -8.77	74.82	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -8.77	25/122
agentlessLineCoverage	93.53	123.36	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -29.83	116.18	$\color{green}{\blacktriangledown}$ -22.65	27/124

Baseline: median of @test.tracer_overhead on main (gitlab) over the last 7/30 days, per OSS project & scenario. Δ = this PR − baseline median; red ▲ = more overhead, green ▽ = less overhead than baseline.

Tests run to verify that CI Visibility behavior has not regressed in the current PR.

[juan-fernandez]

/datadog autotest review
@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Already looking forward to the next diff.

Reviewed commit: 2696a0664f

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".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

🛡️ Codex Security Review · Automatically triggered

Security review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 2696a0664f

View security finding report

Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex.

ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHub

This is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:

• You comment "@codex security review"
• A regular code review gets triggered (for example, "@codex review" or when a PR is opened), and you’re opted in so security review runs alongside code review

Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found.

[datadog-official]

More details

POM-resolved skip values are evaluated on successful Maven test mojos, while skipExec and skipITs remain constrained to the plugins that implement them.

Was this helpful? React 👍 or 👎

_{Open Bits AI session}

_{🤖 Bits Code Review · Commit 2696a06 · @DataDog review to ask questions}

[juan-fernandez]

/merge

[gh-worker-devflow-routing-ef8351]

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.

2026-09-25 14:42:43 UTC ℹ️ Start processing command /merge

---

2026-09-25 14:42:48 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: pull request added to the queue

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

---

2026-09-25 15:59:53 UTC ❌ MergeQueue: The build pipeline failed for this merge request

Build pipeline has failing jobs for f6ffcfd:

• test_inst: [27, 6/8]

⚠️ 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.