-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/57311/#review167993
-----------------------------------------------------------




geode-core/src/test/java/org/apache/geode/internal/AvailablePortHelper.java
Lines 18 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/57311/#comment239995>

    Code Style guidleines are to not use wildcard imports.



geode-core/src/test/java/org/apache/geode/internal/AvailablePortHelper.java
Lines 113-114 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/57311/#comment240005>

    Is the upper_bound a useable port? If so then the outer loop test should be 
'<='. Also in the test condition, the upper_bound should be reduced by the 
count to enusre that i + j doesn't exceed the upper_bound.


- Ken Howe


On March 4, 2017, 1:57 a.m., Kirk Lund wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/57311/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated March 4, 2017, 1:57 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for geode, Anthony Baker, Bruce Schuchardt, Jinmei Liao, Jared 
> Stewart, Ken Howe, and Mark Bretl.
> 
> 
> Bugs: GEODE-2593
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-2593
> 
> 
> Repository: geode
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> GEODE-2593: add port range to AvailablePortHelper to fix testUDPPortRange
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   
> geode-core/src/test/java/org/apache/geode/distributed/DistributedSystemDUnitTest.java
>  c57ad1760a9de45b10a0298d601d57c4fce97633 
>   geode-core/src/test/java/org/apache/geode/internal/AvailablePortHelper.java 
> e09a7a06a46adbae56eadce5f63039d7bbeb886d 
>   
> geode-core/src/test/java/org/apache/geode/internal/AvailablePortHelperIntegrationTest.java
>  PRE-CREATION 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/57311/diff/1/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> AvailablePortHelperIntegrationTest
> DistributedSystemDUnitTest
> precheckin in progress
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Kirk Lund
> 
>

Reply via email to