Fix OpenAI Java 4.54 compatibility

[AlexeyKuznetsov-DD]

What Does This Do

Adds compatibility handling for ResponseInputItem.FunctionCallOutput.callId() across OpenAI Java versions. Versions before 4.54 return String; version 4.54 and later return Optional<String>. The instrumentation resolves the accessor through the existing method-handle compatibility helper and normalizes both forms to a nullable string.

Updates latest-dependency coverage to OpenAI Java 4.54.0, asserts that function-call output IDs are preserved, and adds the request fixture for the 4.54 serialization order.

Motivation

OpenAI Java 4.54.0 made function-call output call IDs optional, changing the JVM method descriptor. The existing direct invocation referenced the earlier String descriptor, causing muzzle validation to reject 4.54.0 and preventing the instrumentation from loading for that version.

Additional Notes

Validation:

• ./gradlew :dd-java-agent:instrumentation:openai-java:openai-java-3.0:muzzle
• ./gradlew :dd-java-agent:instrumentation:openai-java:openai-java-3.0:test :dd-java-agent:instrumentation:openai-java:openai-java-3.0:latestDepTest --tests ResponseServiceTest

The minimum-dependency suite uses OpenAI Java 3.0.1 and the latest-dependency suite uses OpenAI Java 4.54.0. The response tests passed against both versions. The compatibility fallback is intentionally silent, so an unexpected SDK shape cannot produce a debug-log entry for every function-call output.

Upstream API change: openai/openai-java#939

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
• Once approved, use merge queue to merge the PR

Jira ticket: [PROJ-IDENT]

[dd-octo-sts]

Hi! 👋 Thanks for your pull request! 🎉

To help us review it, please make sure to:

• Remove the issue linking keyword

If you need help, please check our contributing guidelines.

[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 2026-08-29T20:23:14.619430Z	e265663	Manual request

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-prod-us1-5]

More details

The method handle does not bind to either SDK return descriptor. It returns the call ID for both String and Optional results.

Was this helpful? React 👍 or 👎

_{Open Bits AI session}

_{🤖 Datadog Autotest · Commit e265663 · What is Autotest? · @DataDog review to ask questions · Any feedback? Reach out in #autotest}

[datadog-prod-us1-5]

🎯 Code Coverage (details)
• Patch Coverage: 100.00%
• Overall Coverage: 69.74% (+10.93%)

_{This comment will be updated automatically if new data arrives.
🔗 Commit SHA: a3b92de | Docs | View more details | 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	14.03 s	13.96 s	[-0.2%; +1.3%] (no difference)
startup:insecure-bank:tracing:Agent	12.94 s	12.93 s	[-0.7%; +0.8%] (no difference)
startup:petclinic:appsec:Agent	16.82 s	16.69 s	[-0.3%; +1.8%] (no difference)
startup:petclinic:iast:Agent	16.88 s	16.97 s	[-1.3%; +0.3%] (no difference)
startup:petclinic:profiling:Agent	16.71 s	16.81 s	[-1.5%; +0.4%] (no difference)
startup:petclinic:sca:Agent	16.80 s	16.62 s	[+0.1%; +2.1%] (maybe worse)
startup:petclinic:tracing:Agent	16.07 s	16.12 s	[-1.4%; +0.7%] (no difference)

Commit: a3b92de0 · 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.

[ygree]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Delightful!

Reviewed commit: e2656636db

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".

[ygree]

I left a couple of non-critical notes, but it looks good overall.

[AlexeyKuznetsov-DD]

/merge -f --reason "No need to run on MQ, since we skip Muzzle tests on MQ"

[gh-worker-devflow-routing-ef8351]

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.

2026-08-30 19:57:38 UTC ℹ️ Start processing command /merge -f --reason "No need to run on MQ, since we skip Muzzle tests on MQ"

---

2026-08-30 19:57:44 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: pull request added to the queue

The expected merge time in master is approximately 0s (p90).

---

2026-08-30 19:57:52 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: This merge request was merged

Warning

This change was merged without running any pre merge CI checks

Reason: No need to run on MQ, since we skip Muzzle tests on MQ