[eric-weaver]

What does this PR do?

Fixes recovery of appended DBM<>APM comments from the SQL Server activity tail_text.

• Replaces the tail_text obfuscator call with extract_trailing_dbm_comments, which reads /* ... */ blocks backward from the end of the text, skipping trailing whitespace and semicolons. A backward scan cannot tell whether a delimiter belongs to a string literal or a line comment, so it only accepts blocks in the tracers' key='value' format that carry a DBM marker, and stops at the first block that does not match. Recovery is skipped when collect_comments or collect_metadata is disabled.
• Removes tail_text from the row before the activity event is sent.

The old path could not return comments for two reasons:

1. _obfuscator_options_for_tail_text did not set return_json_metadata (or collect_comments), so the agent returned a plain string and obfuscate_sql_with_metadata produced empty metadata.
2. RIGHT(qt.text, 200) can start inside a string literal. Even with comment collection enabled, the obfuscator treats everything after the unmatched quote as a string and finds no comments.

tail_text was also never removed from the row, so the raw, unobfuscated end of every long batch was sent in activity payloads.

Motivation

Found while testing DBM<>APM link propagation end to end against local SQL Server 2022 with dd-trace-java. A PreparedStatement in service propagation mode, padded past 500 characters, had its appended ddps comment in tail_text but an empty dd_comments, so the sample had no caller service. Leading comments and short batches are already covered by #24899.

Verified with the local-dev MITM capture on Agent 7.85.0

Before the fix injected comments are getting lost so calling service section of a query sample is missing details

After the fix the injected comments are captured properly and we're able to populate calling service metadata

Checklist before requesting review

• I self-reviewed the full diff, and this description matches the final change
• Tests cover the change, or this description explains why none are needed
• Automated review comments, including Codex review, were addressed or answered
• I, the human author, understand this change, can explain it to reviewers, and believe it meets the repository standards

[cit-pr-commenter-54b7da]

evalya-impact-summary

Evalya CI impact

Impact analysis: RUN-ALL — every test task will run
Trigger:         empty diff (default branch, scheduled run, or shallow-clone fallback)
Test tasks:      0 (all selected)
Publish tasks:   4 (always emitted)
Changed files:   0

Full impact report
Learn more about CI impact filtering

[dd-octo-sts]

✅ Dispatcher tests: passed

Dispatcher beta: informational only
Existing CI remains the merge signal.

  46/46 jobs

✅ 46 passed · nothing failed

Batches · ✅ batch-01 46/46

_{Dispatcher finished on c76ed81 — GitHub Run · Dispatcher Logs.}

[datadog-datadog-prod-us1-2]

   

❌ Errors

Your PR has failed checks. Please review the issues below and take necessary action before merging.

🚦 1 Pipeline job failed

Validate repository | Run Validations / Validate

View more details · View in GitHub Actions

ℹ️ Info

No other issues found (see more)

🧪 All tests passed
❄️ No new flaky tests detected

🔄 Datadog retried 1 test - 1 passed on retry

🎯 Code Coverage (details)
• Patch Coverage: 100.00%
• Overall Coverage: 91.65% (+1.90%)

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎

_{This comment will be updated automatically if new data arrives.
🔗 Commit SHA: 3520a89 | Docs | View more details | Give us feedback!}

[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 2026-10-30T20:27:10.005775Z	c7a280a	Draft marked ready

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.

[dd-octo-sts]

Disk usage change

Commit 3520a89 compared against c76ed81.

Uncompressed

linux-aarch64	linux-x86_64	macos-aarch64	macos-x86_64	windows-x86_64
🔺 +1.15 KiB	🔺 +1.15 KiB	🔺 +1.15 KiB	🔺 +1.15 KiB	🔺 +1.15 KiB

Details

Name	Version	Type	linux-aarch64	linux-x86_64	macos-aarch64	macos-x86_64	windows-x86_64
sqlserver	23.7.0	Integration	🔺 +1.15 KiB	🔺 +1.15 KiB	🔺 +1.15 KiB	🔺 +1.15 KiB	🔺 +1.15 KiB

Compressed

linux-aarch64	linux-x86_64	macos-aarch64	macos-x86_64	windows-x86_64
🔺 +510 B	🔺 +510 B	🔺 +510 B	🔺 +510 B	🔺 +510 B

Details

Name	Version	Type	linux-aarch64	linux-x86_64	macos-aarch64	macos-x86_64	windows-x86_64
sqlserver	23.7.0	Integration	🔺 +510 B	🔺 +510 B	🔺 +510 B	🔺 +510 B	🔺 +510 B

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: c7a280af9e

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".

[datadog-datadog-prod-us1-2]

Tail-comment recovery bypasses documented collection opt-outs and can misclassify SQL string contents as comments, placing unobfuscated literal values in dd_comments.

_{Open Bits AI session}

_{🤖 Bits Code Review · Commit c7a280a}

[dd-octo-sts]

Validation Report

All 22 validations passed.

Show details

Validation	Description	Status
agent-reqs	Verify check versions match the Agent requirements file	✅
ci	Validate CI configuration and code coverage settings	✅
codeowners	Validate every integration has a CODEOWNERS entry	✅
config	Validate default configuration files against spec.yaml	✅
dep	Verify dependency pins are consistent and Agent-compatible	✅
http	Validate integrations use the HTTP wrapper correctly	✅
imports	Validate check imports do not use deprecated modules	✅
integration-style	Validate check code style conventions	✅
jmx-metrics	Validate JMX metrics definition files and config	✅
labeler	Validate PR labeler config matches integration directories	✅
legacy-signature	Validate no integration uses the legacy Agent check signature	✅
license-headers	Validate Python files have proper license headers	✅
licenses	Validate third-party license attribution list	✅
metadata	Validate metadata.csv metric definitions	✅
models	Validate configuration data models match spec.yaml	✅
openmetrics	Validate OpenMetrics integrations disable the metric limit	✅
package	Validate Python package metadata, naming, and wheel contents	✅
pr-description	Validate the pull request checklist and visible description length	✅
qa-label	Validate the pull request declares whether it needs QA for the next Agent release	✅
readmes	Validate README files have required sections	✅
saved-views	Validate saved view JSON file structure and fields	✅
version	Validate version consistency between package and changelog	✅

View full run