Fix Spring Rabbit listener scope close order

[amarziali]

What Does This Do

The listener entry advice activated theamqp.consumescope before closing its resumed parent scope, causing an out-of-order close and leaving the parent on the stack until listener completion.

Create the consume span while its parent is active, then close the parent scope before activating the consume scope. This preserves span parentage without relying on delayed stack cleanup.

Motivation

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]

[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 2026-09-30T10:53:11.421341Z	23f83c8	PR opened
🔒 Security Review	✅ Completed 2026-09-30T10:47:27.173197Z	23f83c8	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-prod-us1-6]

More details

The revised ordering preserves consume-span parentage while closing the resumed parent scope before activating the consume scope; no lifecycle defect was identified.

Was this helpful? React 👍 or 👎

_{Open Bits AI session}

_{🤖 Bits Code Review · Commit 23f83c8 · @DataDog review to ask questions}

[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	13.97 s	14.04 s	[-1.2%; +0.2%] (no difference)
startup:insecure-bank:tracing:Agent	13.02 s	13.02 s	[-0.9%; +0.9%] (no difference)
startup:petclinic:appsec:Agent	17.09 s	16.97 s	[-0.5%; +1.9%] (no difference)
startup:petclinic:iast:Agent	17.07 s	17.07 s	[-0.9%; +0.9%] (no difference)
startup:petclinic:profiling:Agent	16.49 s	16.88 s	[-6.7%; +2.1%] (no difference)
startup:petclinic:sca:Agent	16.97 s	16.92 s	[-0.7%; +1.3%] (no difference)
startup:petclinic:tracing:Agent	16.27 s	16.26 s	[-1.0%; +1.0%] (no difference)

Commit: 23f83c88 · 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.