refactor: fix layering violations in otel related to Span typechecking

[emmettbutler]

No description provided.

[datadog-datadog-prod-us1]

 

⚠️ Warnings

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

🚦 2 Pipeline jobs failed

Changelog | Validate changelog

View more details · View in GitHub Actions

Team freeze guard | Team freeze guard

View more details · View in GitHub Actions

ℹ️ Info

No other issues found (see more)

🧪 All tests passed
❄️ No new flaky tests detected

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎

_{This comment will be updated automatically if new data arrives.
🔗 Commit SHA: 91ab0d8 | Docs | View more details | Give us feedback!}

[cit-pr-commenter-54b7da]

Codeowners resolved as

Resolved from the full PR diff against main using the target branch CODEOWNERS file.
CODEOWNERS team requests not listed below are not required by the current file set.

ddtrace/internal/opentelemetry/context.py                               @DataDog/apm-sdk-capabilities-python
ddtrace/internal/opentelemetry/span.py                                  @DataDog/apm-sdk-capabilities-python
ddtrace/internal/opentelemetry/thread_context.py                        @DataDog/apm-sdk-capabilities-python @DataDog/asm-python @DataDog/profiling-python
ddtrace/internal/opentelemetry/trace.py                                 @DataDog/apm-sdk-capabilities-python

[cit-pr-commenter-54b7da]

Circular import analysis

⚠️ Existing circular imports

There are 1 circular imports that already exist on the base branch and have not been changed by this PR.

ddtrace.errortracking._handled_exceptions.bytecode_injector -> ddtrace.errortracking._handled_exceptions.callbacks -> ddtrace.errortracking._handled_exceptions.collector -> ddtrace.errortracking._handled_exceptions.bytecode_reporting -> ddtrace.errortracking._handled_exceptions.bytecode_injector

[cit-pr-commenter-54b7da]

Dependency direction analysis

⚠️ Existing dependency direction violations

There are 215 dependency direction violations that already exist on the base branch and have not been changed by this PR.

Show existing violations (showing 5 of 215 highest severity)

ddtrace.internal.tracemethods -×-> ddtrace.trace  (internal-core -> product:tracing, score=133)
ddtrace.internal.ci_visibility.git_client -×-> ddtrace.trace  (product:ci_visibility -> product:tracing, score=131)
ddtrace.appsec._listeners -×-> ddtrace.trace  (product:appsec -> product:tracing, score=131)
ddtrace.llmobs._integrations.vllm -×-> ddtrace.trace  (product:llmobs -> product:tracing, score=131)
ddtrace.llmobs._integrations.pydantic_ai -×-> ddtrace.trace  (product:llmobs -> product:tracing, score=131)

To see all violations, download the layers-base.json and layers-pr.json artifacts from this CI job and run:

uv run --script scripts/import-analysis/layers.py compare layers-base.json layers-pr.json

✅ Dependency direction violations removed

3 violation(s) have been removed by this PR.

ddtrace.internal.opentelemetry.context -×-> ddtrace._trace.span  (product:opentelemetry -> product:tracing, score=46)
ddtrace.internal.opentelemetry.thread_context -×-> ddtrace._trace.span  (product:opentelemetry -> product:tracing, score=46)
ddtrace.internal.opentelemetry.span -×-> ddtrace._trace.span  (product:opentelemetry -> product:tracing, score=46)

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: d2a0ad0b9d

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".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Use plain text in the private protocol docstring

This private internal helper is not rendered by Sphinx, so the double-backtick literal violates the repository convention and adds editor-only markup; write ddtrace._trace.span.Span as plain text instead.

AGENTS.md reference: AGENTS.md:L44-L52

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Remove rST markup from the private helper docstring

Because _LocalRootProtocol is a private helper in an internal module rather than a Sphinx-rendered interface, its double-backtick markup conflicts with the repository's plain-prose requirement; spell _local_root without rST markup.

AGENTS.md reference: AGENTS.md:L44-L52

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

[pr-commenter]

Benchmarks

Benchmark execution time: 2026-09-15 19:02:46

Comparing candidate commit 91ab0d8 in PR branch emmett.butler/otel-span-proto with baseline commit a9bd5d1 in branch main.

📊 Benchmarking dashboard

Found 0 performance improvements and 1 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 44 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:otelspan-start

• 🟥 execution_time [+2.370ms; +3.152ms] or [+7.271%; +9.672%]