From reviews-return-72147-apmail-mesos-reviews-archive=mesos.apache.org@mesos.apache.org Thu Jan 18 19:20:43 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-mesos-reviews-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-mesos-reviews-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BCFF017DFD for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 19:20:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 63099 invoked by uid 500); 18 Jan 2018 19:20:43 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-mesos-reviews-archive@mesos.apache.org Received: (qmail 63064 invoked by uid 500); 18 Jan 2018 19:20:43 -0000 Mailing-List: contact reviews-help@mesos.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: reviews@mesos.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list reviews@mesos.apache.org Received: (qmail 63053 invoked by uid 99); 18 Jan 2018 19:20:43 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd2-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 19:20:43 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd2-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd2-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id E0D8B1A74CA; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 19:20:42 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd2-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.541 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.541 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=2, KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-eu.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd2-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.9]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e8AQdTQLdSzR; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 19:20:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org (mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org [209.188.14.139]) by mx1-lw-eu.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-eu.apache.org) with ESMTP id 053095F58C; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 19:20:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from reviews.apache.org (unknown [10.41.0.12]) by mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 5496AE00A3; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 19:20:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from reviews-vm2.apache.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by reviews.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at reviews-vm2.apache.org) with ESMTP id 22249C40331; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 19:20:37 +0000 (UTC) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="===============3218405106681241304==" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Review Request 65057: Tested that op status updates dropped en route to master are resent. From: Greg Mann To: Jie Yu , Chun-Hung Hsiao , Greg Mann Cc: Gaston Kleiman , mesos Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 19:20:36 -0000 Message-ID: <20180118192036.60722.17525@reviews-vm2.apache.org> X-ReviewBoard-URL: https://reviews.apache.org/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Sender: Greg Mann X-ReviewGroup: mesos X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, OOF, AutoReply X-ReviewRequest-URL: https://reviews.apache.org/r/65057/ X-Sender: Greg Mann References: <20180110002551.57200.19333@reviews-vm2.apache.org> In-Reply-To: <20180110002551.57200.19333@reviews-vm2.apache.org> Reply-To: Greg Mann X-ReviewRequest-Repository: mesos --===============3218405106681241304== MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/65057/#review195745 ----------------------------------------------------------- src/tests/storage_local_resource_provider_tests.cpp Lines 2132 (patched) Maybe "To accomplish this:" src/tests/storage_local_resource_provider_tests.cpp Lines 2134 (patched) s/message// src/tests/storage_local_resource_provider_tests.cpp Lines 2172-2179 (patched) Could you also add a note here regarding why the order of these two is reversed? Chun-Hung and I have such a comment in ours if you want to borrow it for consistency :) src/tests/storage_local_resource_provider_tests.cpp Lines 2189-2191 (patched) Could you leave a more verbose comment here as to why this is necessary? Chun-Hung and my patches have one if you care to borrow for consistency :) src/tests/storage_local_resource_provider_tests.cpp Lines 2226 (patched) Do we need this, or just being careful? If it is needed, it might not be if we add a long filter to the accept call. src/tests/storage_local_resource_provider_tests.cpp Lines 2278 (patched) Benjamin suggested on my RR that we figure out the issue in `Slave::~Slave()` that creates the need for this resume. Looking at some other paused tests in the codebase, many of them do not need to resume. I agree that it's a good idea for us to fix this in 'cluster.cpp' and eliminate the need for this resume. - Greg Mann On Jan. 10, 2018, 12:25 a.m., Gaston Kleiman wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/65057/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Jan. 10, 2018, 12:25 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Chun-Hung Hsiao, Greg Mann, and Jie Yu. > > > Bugs: MESOS-8363 and MESOS-8420 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-8363 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-8420 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > This patch adds > `StorageLocalResourceProviderTest.ROOT_RetryOperationStatusUpdate` that > verifies that operation status updates are resent to the master after > being dropped en route to it. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/tests/storage_local_resource_provider_tests.cpp bbfe95e9818f25fdd5405db3ad2fe355e023f743 > > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/65057/diff/4/ > > > Testing > ------- > > `sudo bin/mesos-tests.sh --gtest_filter='StorageLocalResourceProviderTest.ROOT_RetryOperationStatusUpdate' --gtest_repeat=100 --gtest_break_on_failure` on GNU/Linux > > > Thanks, > > Gaston Kleiman > > --===============3218405106681241304==--