Return non-null traceConfig from ExtractedSpan

[mcculls]

What Does This Do

Provide a real implementation, in case anything queries an ExtractedSpan for the current trace config. Note this is the only agent span implementation that was returning an invalid value for traceConfig()

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

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: e17fffd660

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".

[mcculls]

@DataDog review

[datadog-official]

More details

ExtractedSpan now returns the TraceConfig snapshot stored in TagContext and uses the current tracer config only when no snapshot exists. The new commit resolves the earlier configuration-drift finding, adds fallback coverage for empty and custom contexts, and leaves no open finding in the current PR.

Was this helpful? React 👍 or 👎

_{Open Bits AI session}

_{🤖 Datadog Autotest · Commit 1632cd0 · 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	14.82 s	14.74 s	[-0.3%; +1.3%] (no difference)
startup:insecure-bank:tracing:Agent	13.56 s	13.65 s	[-1.6%; +0.3%] (no difference)
startup:petclinic:appsec:Agent	17.18 s	16.84 s	[+1.0%; +2.9%] (significantly worse)
startup:petclinic:iast:Agent	16.99 s	17.06 s	[-1.1%; +0.3%] (no difference)
startup:petclinic:profiling:Agent	16.89 s	16.92 s	[-1.3%; +0.9%] (no difference)
startup:petclinic:sca:Agent	17.00 s	16.70 s	[+0.9%; +2.6%] (maybe worse)
startup:petclinic:tracing:Agent	16.18 s	16.23 s	[-1.3%; +0.6%] (no difference)

Commit: 1632cd0c · 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.