mesos-reviews mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Anand Mazumdar" <mazumdar.an...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Review Request 38844: Added unit tests for Call validation in Agent
Date Wed, 30 Sep 2015 05:13:53 GMT

-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/38844/#review101073
-----------------------------------------------------------


LGTM ! Just some minor comments to clean up the tests around parameterizing/scoping.


src/tests/executor_http_api_tests.cpp (line 450)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/38844/#comment158380>

    s/TEST_F/TEST_P
    
    Is there a reason why this test is not parameterized ?



src/tests/executor_http_api_tests.cpp (line 468)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/38844/#comment158381>

    



src/tests/executor_http_api_tests.cpp (lines 468 - 483)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/38844/#comment158393>

    s/responseSubscribe/response
    
    Can we use scoping here for each of the 3 different scenarios :
    
    {
      Call call;
      blah blah;
    }
    
    {
      Call call;
      blah blah;
    }
    ...



src/tests/executor_http_api_tests.cpp (line 515)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/38844/#comment158385>

    s/TEST_F/TEST_P and make this test parametrized. Is there a reason why this is not ?
    
    s/InvalidCallUpdate/StatusUpdateCallFailedValidation to be more descriptive



src/tests/executor_http_api_tests.cpp (line 531)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/38844/#comment158389>

    // We send a valid Call::Update message with inconsistent executor_id between Call::executor_id
and Call::Update::TaskInfo::executor_id. This should result in failed validation.
    
    ^^ How does this sound to you ?



src/tests/executor_http_api_tests.cpp (line 561)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/38844/#comment158390>

    Nit: // We send a valid Call::Update message with a TASK_STAGING status update. This should
fail validation.
    
    (Mainly because after parameterizing the test this won't always be a protobuf message.)



src/tests/executor_http_api_tests.cpp (lines 563 - 573)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/38844/#comment158391>

    Scope this similar to my earlier comment:
    
    {
      blah blah;
    }


- Anand Mazumdar


On Sept. 29, 2015, 9:27 p.m., Isabel Jimenez wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/38844/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Sept. 29, 2015, 9:27 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Anand Mazumdar and Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-2906
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2906
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Unit tests for Call validation in Agent.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/tests/executor_http_api_tests.cpp c2c05f4 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/38844/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Isabel Jimenez
> 
>


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message