fix(libdd-ipc): add missing Win32_System_WindowsProgramming windows-sys feature

[VianneyRuhlmann]

What does this PR do?

Adds the missing Win32_System_WindowsProgramming feature to the windows-sys dependency in libdd-ipc/Cargo.toml, which gates FILE_SKIP_COMPLETION_PORT_ON_SUCCESS (imported in src/platform/windows/sockets/writer.rs).

Motivation

Standalone (non-workspace) builds of libdd-ipc fail on Windows with unresolved import windows_sys::Win32::System::WindowsProgramming (E0432). The feature was dropped during the windows-sys 0.48 → 0.52 migration in #2569 while the import remained. CI never caught it because mio 1.0.2 in the workspace lockfile accidentally enables the feature via unification — downstream lockfiles (e.g. dd-trace-py) that resolve mio to a version using windows-sys 0.61 get no such rescue and all Windows wheels fail.

Additional Notes

Audited all other windows_sys imports in libdd-ipc/src — every remaining module maps to an already-declared feature.

How to test the change?

Verified with an isolated consumer crate (fresh lockfile where mio resolves to windows-sys 0.61.2): cargo tree -i windows-sys@0.52.0 -e features --target x86_64-pc-windows-msvc now shows Win32_System_WindowsProgramming flowing solely from libdd-ipc. On a Windows runner, cargo check -p libdd-ipc --target x86_64-pc-windows-msvc should pass.

[bwoebi]

Thanks for catching!

[pr-commenter]

Benchmarks

Comparison

Benchmark execution time: 2026-10-13 11:09:39

Comparing candidate commit c60a104 in PR branch vianney/fix-ipc-windows-feature-flag with baseline commit 2416f4f in branch main.

📊 Benchmarking dashboard

Found 0 performance improvements and 0 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 2 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 ----------------------------------'

Candidate

Candidate benchmark details

Group 1

cpu_model	git_commit_sha	git_commit_date	git_branch
Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8259CL CPU @ 2.50GHz	c60a104	1791889328	vianney/fix-ipc-windows-feature-flag

scenario	metric	min	mean ± sd	median ± mad	p75	p95	p99	max	peak_to_median_ratio	skewness	kurtosis	cv	sem	runs	sample_size
write only interface	execution_time	1.077µs	1.092µs ± 0.005µs	1.092µs ± 0.001µs	1.094µs	1.098µs	1.107µs	1.126µs	3.12%	2.798	18.774	0.44%	0.000µs	1	200

scenario	metric	95% CI mean	Shapiro-Wilk pvalue	Ljung-Box pvalue (lag=1)	Dip test pvalue
write only interface	execution_time	[1.092µs; 1.093µs] or [-0.061%; +0.061%]	None	None	None

Group 2

cpu_model	git_commit_sha	git_commit_date	git_branch
Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8259CL CPU @ 2.50GHz	c60a104	1791889328	vianney/fix-ipc-windows-feature-flag

scenario	metric	min	mean ± sd	median ± mad	p75	p95	p99	max	peak_to_median_ratio	skewness	kurtosis	cv	sem	runs	sample_size
two way interface	execution_time	14.947µs	15.367µs ± 0.214µs	15.340µs ± 0.156µs	15.514µs	15.706µs	15.903µs	16.166µs	5.38%	0.505	0.229	1.39%	0.015µs	1	200

scenario	metric	95% CI mean	Shapiro-Wilk pvalue	Ljung-Box pvalue (lag=1)	Dip test pvalue
two way interface	execution_time	[15.337µs; 15.396µs] or [-0.193%; +0.193%]	None	None	None

Baseline

Baseline benchmark details

Group 1

cpu_model	git_commit_sha	git_commit_date	git_branch
Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8259CL CPU @ 2.50GHz	2416f4f	1791883056	main

scenario	metric	min	mean ± sd	median ± mad	p75	p95	p99	max	peak_to_median_ratio	skewness	kurtosis	cv	sem	runs	sample_size
write only interface	execution_time	1.059µs	1.071µs ± 0.004µs	1.072µs ± 0.002µs	1.074µs	1.075µs	1.081µs	1.088µs	1.43%	-0.167	1.637	0.38%	0.000µs	1	200

scenario	metric	95% CI mean	Shapiro-Wilk pvalue	Ljung-Box pvalue (lag=1)	Dip test pvalue
write only interface	execution_time	[1.071µs; 1.072µs] or [-0.052%; +0.052%]	None	None	None

Group 2

cpu_model	git_commit_sha	git_commit_date	git_branch
Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8259CL CPU @ 2.50GHz	2416f4f	1791883056	main

scenario	metric	min	mean ± sd	median ± mad	p75	p95	p99	max	peak_to_median_ratio	skewness	kurtosis	cv	sem	runs	sample_size
two way interface	execution_time	15.335µs	15.671µs ± 0.294µs	15.585µs ± 0.101µs	15.741µs	16.229µs	16.476µs	17.888µs	14.78%	3.238	17.028	1.87%	0.021µs	1	200

scenario	metric	95% CI mean	Shapiro-Wilk pvalue	Ljung-Box pvalue (lag=1)	Dip test pvalue
two way interface	execution_time	[15.631µs; 15.712µs] or [-0.260%; +0.260%]	None	None	None

[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 2026-10-13T11:06:13.078476Z	c60a104	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.

[datadog-datadog-prod-us1-2]

✅ All CI checks and tests passed.

🎉 All green!

🧪 All tests passed
❄️ No new flaky tests detected

🎯 Code Coverage (details)
• Patch Coverage: 100.00%
• Overall Coverage: 81.51% (+0.02%)

_{This comment will be updated automatically if new data arrives.
🔗 Commit SHA: c60a104 | Docs | View more details | Give us feedback!}