Fix for undertow versions > 2.2.40, 2.3.25 and 2.4.0

[vandonr]

What Does This Do

following this CVE fix, the HTTP parser changed.

• for instrumentation purposes, the new one uses a similar interface, so we can just plug it into the existing advice.
• in tests, since the behavior changed a bit, we need a special case to handle old vs new

Motivation

LatestDepTests failed

Additional Notes

since the old parser was an abstract class and the new one is a final, we cannot reuse the existing Instrumenter.ForTypeHierarchy instrumentation and need to create a new class that inherits from Instrumenter.ForSingleType instead.

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
• Add your completed PR to the merge queue by commenting /merge. You can also:
  • Customize the commit message associated with the merge with /merge --commit-message "..."
  • Remove your PR from the merge queue with /merge -c
  • Skip all merge queue checks with /merge -f --reason "reason"; please use this judiciously, as some checks do not run at the PR-level (note: the PR still needs to be mergeable, this will only skip the pre-merge build)
  • Get more information in this doc

Jira ticket: [PROJ-IDENT]

[datadog-prod-us1-5]

🎯 Code Coverage (details)
• Patch Coverage: 100.00%
• Overall Coverage: 69.73% (+12.79%)

_{This comment will be updated automatically if new data arrives.
🔗 Commit SHA: 9fbd0c2 | Docs | Datadog PR Page | Give us feedback!}

[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	14.79 s	14.60 s	[+0.5%; +2.0%] (maybe worse)
startup:insecure-bank:tracing:Agent	13.64 s	13.75 s	[-1.9%; +0.2%] (no difference)
startup:petclinic:appsec:Agent	16.93 s	16.84 s	[-0.4%; +1.5%] (no difference)
startup:petclinic:iast:Agent	16.22 s	16.98 s	[-8.7%; -0.3%] (maybe better)
startup:petclinic:profiling:Agent	16.79 s	16.84 s	[-1.3%; +0.7%] (no difference)
startup:petclinic:sca:Agent	16.89 s	16.61 s	[+0.7%; +2.6%] (maybe worse)
startup:petclinic:tracing:Agent	16.08 s	16.21 s	[-1.6%; -0.0%] (maybe better)

Commit: 9fbd0c20 · 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.

[vandonr]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 81d352e8ab

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".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Migrate touched Groovy test to JUnit 5

This patch adds new behavior to an existing Groovy/Spock test, but the root AGENTS.md for this tree says to use JUnit 5 and to migrate an existing Groovy test when it is written in Groovy. Please move this updated coverage to a JUnit 5 test instead of extending UndertowServletAsyncTest.groovy.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.