fix(deps): update all golang.org/x packages

[renovate]

This PR contains the following updates:

Package	Change	Age	Confidence
golang.org/x/mod	v0.28.0 -> v0.30.0
golang.org/x/sys	v0.37.0 -> v0.38.0
golang.org/x/tools	v0.38.0 -> v0.39.0

---

Warning

Some dependencies could not be looked up. Check the Dependency Dashboard for more information.

---

Configuration

📅 Schedule: Branch creation - "on tuesday" (UTC), Automerge - At any time (no schedule defined).

🚦 Automerge: Disabled by config. Please merge this manually once you are satisfied.

♻ Rebasing: Whenever PR becomes conflicted, or you tick the rebase/retry checkbox.

👻 Immortal: This PR will be recreated if closed unmerged. Get config help if that's undesired.

---

• If you want to rebase/retry this PR, check this box

---

This PR was generated by Mend Renovate. View the repository job log.

[renovate]

ℹ Artifact update notice

File name: internal/tools/go.mod

In order to perform the update(s) described in the table above, Renovate ran the go get command, which resulted in the following additional change(s):

• 2 additional dependencies were updated

Details:

Package	Change
golang.org/x/mod	v0.29.0 -> v0.30.0
golang.org/x/telemetry	v0.0.0-20251008203120-078029d740a8 -> v0.0.0-20251111182119-bc8e575c7b54

[codspeed-hq]

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #14223 will degrade performances by 100%

_{Comparing renovate/all-golang.orgx-packages (277bbe0) with main (b12ce10)}

⚠️ Unknown Walltime execution environment detected

Using the Walltime instrument on standard Hosted Runners will lead to inconsistent data.

For the most accurate results, we recommend using CodSpeed Macro Runners: bare-metal machines fine-tuned for performance measurement consistency.

Summary

❌ 4 regressions
✅ 69 untouched

⚠️ Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.

Benchmarks breakdown

	Benchmark	BASE	HEAD	Change
❌	zstdWithConcurrency	21.2 µs	28.9 µs	-26.46%
❌	BenchmarkSplittingBasedOnItemCountManySmallLogs	2.4 ms	3.2 ms	-26.06%
❌	BenchmarkBatchMetricProcessor2k	1.9 µs	133,696.5 µs	-100%
❌	BenchmarkMultiBatchMetricProcessor2k	2.4 µs	131,824.8 µs	-100%

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 92.14%. Comparing base (b12ce10) to head (277bbe0).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #14223      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   92.17%   92.14%   -0.04%     
==========================================
  Files         668      668              
  Lines       41463    41463              
==========================================
- Hits        38220    38205      -15     
- Misses       2211     2221      +10     
- Partials     1032     1037       +5     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[mx-psi]

@not-matthias Sorry for the direct ping but I need some help understanding codspeed results. On #14223 (comment) I can see three regressions listed, but only one of them, BenchmarkMultiBatchMetricProcessor2k has profiling data.

The profiling data is very helpful in this case to help me understand the issue (in this case a garbage collector run is introducing noise in the test) but it does not seem to be available for zstdNoConcurrency nor for BenchmarkTraceSizeSpanCount.

I can understand why the latter may not have profiling data (it's a bad benchmark and it takes too little time per run to have a meaningful profile) but I don't understand why the zstd test is not showing profiling data. Could you help me understand why? Thank you!

[not-matthias]

@not-matthias Sorry for the direct ping but I need some help understanding codspeed results. On #14223 (comment) I can see three regressions listed, but only one of them, BenchmarkMultiBatchMetricProcessor2k has profiling data.

The profiling data is very helpful in this case to help me understand the issue (in this case a garbage collector run is introducing noise in the test) but it does not seem to be available for zstdNoConcurrency nor for BenchmarkTraceSizeSpanCount.

I can understand why the latter may not have profiling data (it's a bad benchmark and it takes too little time per run to have a meaningful profile) but I don't understand why the zstd test is not showing profiling data. Could you help me understand why? Thank you!

Hey @mx-psi , feel free to ping me or my colleagues anytime you have questions or notice irregularities! I will investigate what's going wrong and ping you with details once I know more.

EDIT: I've identified the root cause, it's related to how we parse the benchmarks with the metadata. I'm working on a fix, we'll release this ASAP!

[mx-psi]

Thank you!

[not-matthias]

@mx-psi We've released a new version of codspeed-go (see: https://github.com/CodSpeedHQ/codspeed-go/releases/tag/v0.6.0) which also fixed another bug that resulted in an incorrect minimum time. Your project had 2 affected benchmarks (BenchmarkBatchMetricProcessor2k and BenchmarkMultiBatchMetricProcessor2k) which now show the correct time.

And it looks like the flamegraphs are now working.

Let me know if you have any further questions :)

[mx-psi]

@mx-psi We've released a new version of codspeed-go (see: https://github.com/CodSpeedHQ/codspeed-go/releases/tag/v0.6.0) which also fixed another bug that resulted in an incorrect minimum time. Your project had 2 affected benchmarks (BenchmarkBatchMetricProcessor2k and BenchmarkMultiBatchMetricProcessor2k) which now show the correct time.

Ah, that's great! I had actually been working on those two benchmarks because the time was unusually low, I thought it was me not understanding RunParallel or something, thanks for the fixes!