> On Sept. 2, 2014, 10:32 p.m., Josh Elser wrote: > > test/src/test/java/org/apache/accumulo/test/Accumulo3096IT.java, line 34 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/25260/diff/1/?file=674070#file674070line34> > > > > It'd be much nicer to have a test name that is more meaningful than a > > ticket. Having the ticket referenced in a comment is useful if I want to > > find out more, but at first glance it doesn't tell me anything about what > > it's testing. > > Mike Drob wrote: > Why is it even useful as a comment? It should already be in the commit > message and 'git blame' will tell you who and where it came from.
That's valid -- a bit more personal preference, I suppose. I prefer to have information in the code rather than have to look at the history to find when it was introduced, especially when the most recent change isn't from the ticket that originally introduced it (when blame would be wrong). - Josh ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/25260/#review52094 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Sept. 2, 2014, 5:45 p.m., kturner wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/25260/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Sept. 2, 2014, 5:45 p.m.) > > > Review request for accumulo. > > > Bugs: ACCUMULO-3096 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-3096 > > > Repository: accumulo > > > Description > ------- > > Throw exception on metadata constraint violation, instead of retrying > > > Diffs > ----- > > core/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/core/client/impl/Writer.java d6762e7 > > server/base/src/main/java/org/apache/accumulo/server/util/MetadataTableUtil.java > 463ca57 > test/src/test/java/org/apache/accumulo/test/Accumulo3096IT.java > PRE-CREATION > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/25260/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Ran mvn package w/o incident . Currently running mvn verify. > > > Thanks, > > kturner > >
