-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/20018/#review41004
-----------------------------------------------------------


Last thing I would like to see before committing this one is some JSON tests 
per my comments below. Was there a reason to not implement these?

Did you at least test manually? 'make check' would not be sufficient to ensure 
our endpoints are correct here.


3rdparty/libprocess/src/metrics/metrics.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/20018/#comment74358>

    Rather than do this, why not just use http::get as we've done in other 
tests? That should keep the code simple and still give us tests that match how 
it will be used!



3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/metrics_tests.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/20018/#comment74357>

    Any reason these are not implemented? We have support for JSON parsing and 
equality in stout. Ditto below.


- Ben Mahler


On April 21, 2014, 11:02 p.m., Dominic Hamon wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/20018/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated April 21, 2014, 11:02 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Ben Mahler, and Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-1036
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-1036
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos-git
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> see summary.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/metrics/metric.hpp 
> 6a384ded8a4b57fd6aee819d0337773018c45669 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/metrics/metrics.hpp 
> c20bb639e8ef79de63f0d0d56c2ea40a15a1f995 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/src/metrics/metrics.cpp 
> 391295aea91e837bb856a40ef51d1c33d44371d8 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/metrics_tests.cpp 
> abe1588c931b45a09294812974788aa74de44dd4 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/20018/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Dominic Hamon
> 
>

Reply via email to