-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/33340/#review80636
-----------------------------------------------------------



ambari-server/src/main/java/org/apache/ambari/server/checks/ConfigurationMergeCheck.java
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/33340/#comment130765>

    findByVersion can return a null, need to check for it.



ambari-server/src/main/java/org/apache/ambari/server/checks/ConfigurationMergeCheck.java
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/33340/#comment130769>

    My need to check that twv.oldStackValue is not null in the last condition.
    
    If a property is being added, it will be null in oldStackValue, and say 1 
in both twv.savedValue and twv.newStackValue, and this will generate a conflict 
even though a new property is being added.
    
    Is this the case? If not, can drop the issue.



ambari-server/src/main/java/org/apache/ambari/server/checks/HostsRepositoryVersionCheck.java
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/33340/#comment130766>

    Why not just do the break inside here?



ambari-server/src/main/java/org/apache/ambari/server/state/ConfigMergeHelper.java
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/33340/#comment130767>

    I want to confirm my understanding:
    If a service is added in the newer stack, then no conflicts.
    It's only when the property changes value, or the property is removed 
entirely (perhaps component could be removed) that a conflict may arise.



ambari-server/src/main/java/org/apache/ambari/server/state/ConfigMergeHelper.java
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/33340/#comment130771>

    I sure hope we always use the same case for "g" or "m".


- Alejandro Fernandez


On April 19, 2015, 2:28 p.m., Nate Cole wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/33340/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated April 19, 2015, 2:28 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Ambari, Alejandro Fernandez, Jonathan Hurley, and Tom 
> Beerbower.
> 
> 
> Bugs: AMBARI-10586
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMBARI-10586
> 
> 
> Repository: ambari
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> * Added prereq check for merged configs
> * Fixed host check to handle when a version is specified, to check the proper 
> version
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   
> ambari-server/src/main/java/org/apache/ambari/server/checks/CheckDescription.java
>  0db235f 
>   
> ambari-server/src/main/java/org/apache/ambari/server/checks/ConfigurationMergeCheck.java
>  PRE-CREATION 
>   
> ambari-server/src/main/java/org/apache/ambari/server/checks/HostsRepositoryVersionCheck.java
>  0db7e2e 
>   
> ambari-server/src/main/java/org/apache/ambari/server/controller/internal/PreUpgradeCheckResourceProvider.java
>  ee8cefce 
>   
> ambari-server/src/main/java/org/apache/ambari/server/orm/dao/RepositoryVersionDAO.java
>  db5e956 
>   
> ambari-server/src/main/java/org/apache/ambari/server/orm/entities/RepositoryVersionEntity.java
>  dd5ac0a 
>   
> ambari-server/src/main/java/org/apache/ambari/server/state/ConfigMergeHelper.java
>  PRE-CREATION 
>   
> ambari-server/src/main/java/org/apache/ambari/server/state/stack/PrereqCheckStatus.java
>  3384b85 
>   
> ambari-server/src/test/java/org/apache/ambari/server/checks/ConfigurationMergeCheckTest.java
>  PRE-CREATION 
>   
> ambari-server/src/test/java/org/apache/ambari/server/checks/HostsRepositoryVersionCheckTest.java
>  96151af 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/33340/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Manual cluster testing + Automated:
> 
> Tests run: 2867, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 17
> 
> [INFO] 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [INFO] BUILD SUCCESS
> [INFO] 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [INFO] Total time: 22:56.903s
> [INFO] Finished at: Sun Apr 19 09:40:46 EDT 2015
> [INFO] Final Memory: 40M/780M
> [INFO] 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Nate Cole
> 
>

Reply via email to