[Bugfix] fix cleanup loop in language detection handler

[adel121]

What does this PR do?

Fixes a bug in the cleanup loop in language detection handler.

Motivation

The cleanup process is using a select block to listen on channel events. However, the select block is not embedded in a for block. Consequently, only the first item received from the channel is processed and all other subsequent items are ignored.

Additional Notes

Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs

Describe how to test/QA your changes

Repeat the same QA of this PR.

[pr-commenter]

Test changes on VM

Use this command from test-infra-definitions to manually test this PR changes on a VM:

inv create-vm --pipeline-id=33269596 --os-family=ubuntu

[adel121]

/merge

[dd-devflow]

🚂 MergeQueue

Pull request added to the queue.

This build is next! (estimated merge in less than 51m)

Use /merge -c to cancel this operation!

[pr-commenter]

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Run ID: cc8cc2ab-8293-4a58-8722-7381a20a8ac7
Baseline: 9a03fcd
Comparison: d2b9883

Performance changes are noted in the perf column of each table:

• ✅ = significantly better comparison variant performance
• ❌ = significantly worse comparison variant performance
• ➖ = no significant change in performance

No significant changes in experiment optimization goals

Confidence level: 90.00%
Effect size tolerance: |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%

There were no significant changes in experiment optimization goals at this confidence level and effect size tolerance.

Experiments ignored for regressions

Regressions in experiments with settings containing erratic: true are ignored.

perf	experiment	goal	Δ mean %	Δ mean % CI
✅	file_to_blackhole	% cpu utilization	-12.02	[-16.25, -7.80]

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf	experiment	goal	Δ mean %	Δ mean % CI
➖	idle	memory utilization	+0.22	[+0.18, +0.26]
➖	otel_to_otel_logs	ingress throughput	+0.12	[-0.24, +0.47]
➖	trace_agent_msgpack	ingress throughput	-0.00	[-0.00, +0.00]
➖	trace_agent_json	ingress throughput	-0.00	[-0.01, +0.01]
➖	tcp_dd_logs_filter_exclude	ingress throughput	-0.01	[-0.04, +0.02]
➖	uds_dogstatsd_to_api	ingress throughput	-0.01	[-0.21, +0.19]
➖	process_agent_real_time_mode	memory utilization	-0.03	[-0.07, +0.01]
➖	file_tree	memory utilization	-0.15	[-0.26, -0.03]
➖	process_agent_standard_check_with_stats	memory utilization	-0.15	[-0.20, -0.10]
➖	process_agent_standard_check	memory utilization	-0.59	[-0.65, -0.54]
➖	basic_py_check	% cpu utilization	-0.72	[-3.22, +1.78]
➖	pycheck_1000_100byte_tags	% cpu utilization	-0.81	[-5.54, +3.93]
➖	uds_dogstatsd_to_api_cpu	% cpu utilization	-1.13	[-3.97, +1.71]
➖	tcp_syslog_to_blackhole	ingress throughput	-2.92	[-23.86, +18.01]
✅	file_to_blackhole	% cpu utilization	-12.02	[-16.25, -7.80]

Explanation

A regression test is an A/B test of target performance in a repeatable rig, where "performance" is measured as "comparison variant minus baseline variant" for an optimization goal (e.g., ingress throughput). Due to intrinsic variability in measuring that goal, we can only estimate its mean value for each experiment; we report uncertainty in that value as a 90.00% confidence interval denoted "Δ mean % CI".

For each experiment, we decide whether a change in performance is a "regression" -- a change worth investigating further -- if all of the following criteria are true:

1. Its estimated |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%, indicating the change is big enough to merit a closer look.

2. Its 90.00% confidence interval "Δ mean % CI" does not contain zero, indicating that if our statistical model is accurate, there is at least a 90.00% chance there is a difference in performance between baseline and comparison variants.

3. Its configuration does not mark it "erratic".