fix: support stable OTel deployment environment

[bm1549]

Description

Map the stable OpenTelemetry resource attribute deployment.environment.name to DD_ENV. Keep deployment.environment as a fallback and DD_ENV as the highest-precedence source.

The scanner records stable and legacy values separately so attribute order does not change the result. It consumes both environment aliases, keeps unrelated attributes, and handles the stable attribute when it is the final entry.

Related PRs:

• test: cover OTel deployment environment mapping [golang@brian.marks/otel-deployment-environment-name][dotnet@brian.marks/otel-deployment-environment-name][ruby@brian.marks/otel-deployment-environment-name][php@brian.marks/otel-deployment-environment-name][nodejs@brian.marks/otel-deployment-environment-name][rust@brian.marks/otel-deployment-environment-name] system-tests#7613
• fix(config): support stable OTel deployment environment dd-trace-go#5285
• Support stable OTel deployment environment attribute dd-trace-dotnet#9150
• Add stable OTel environment attribute mapping dd-trace-rb#6261
• fix: support stable OTel deployment environment #4148
• fix(config): prefer stable OTel deployment environment dd-trace-js#10050
• fix(config): map OTel deployment environment dd-trace-rs#300
• Support OpenTelemetry deployment environment names dd-trace-java#12324
• fix(config): support OTel deployment environment name dd-trace-py#19901

All five focused PHPTs passed in datadog/dd-trace-ci:php-8.3_bookworm-10.

Reviewer checklist

• Test coverage seems ok.
• Appropriate labels assigned.

[datadog-prod-us1-3]

 

⚠️ Warnings

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

🚦 2 Pipeline jobs failed

DataDog/apm-reliability/dd-trace-php | Extension Tea Tests: [8.2, debug-zts-asan] — 🔄 Retry may pass, looks flaky

View more details · View in GitLab

DataDog/apm-reliability/dd-trace-php | publish docker image for system tests

View more details · View in GitLab

ℹ️ Info

No other issues found (see more)

🧪 All tests passed
❄️ No new flaky tests detected

🎯 Code Coverage (details)
• Patch Coverage: 100.00%
• Overall Coverage: 59.62% (-1.02%)

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎

_{This comment will be updated automatically if new data arrives.
🔗 Commit SHA: 0d2e8c6 | Docs | View more details | Give us feedback!}

[pr-commenter]

Benchmarks [ tracer ]

Benchmark execution time: 2026-08-28 16:56:46

Comparing candidate commit 0d2e8c6 in PR branch brian.marks/otel-deployment-environment-name with baseline commit e043950 in branch master.

Found 2 performance improvements and 0 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 192 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:HookBench/benchHookOverheadTraceMethod-opcache

• 🟩 execution_time [-11.445µs; -4.818µs] or [-6.329%; -2.665%]

scenario:TraceAnnotationsBench/benchTraceAnnotationOverhead-opcache

• 🟩 execution_time [-8.305µs; -4.191µs] or [-4.572%; -2.307%]

[bwoebi]

Thanks for also fixing the off-by-one bug in the loop with multiple valid otel attributes.

[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 2026-08-31T15:56:35.655636Z	0d2e8c6	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.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 0d2e8c6cee

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".