> On 2012-05-02 19:20:13, brian Foster wrote:
> > ./trunk/workflow/src/main/java/org/apache/oodt/cas/workflow/engine/TaskQuerier.java,
> > line 89
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/4961/diff/1/?file=105930#file105930line89>
> >
> > Why do you want Holding category to be returned?
good question I messed that up. Should be
!(processor.getState().getCategory().getName().equals("done") ||
processor.getState().getCategory().getName().equals("holding")) IOW not either
of those.
Fixed in latest version. Will upload soon.
> On 2012-05-02 19:20:13, brian Foster wrote:
> > ./trunk/workflow/src/main/java/org/apache/oodt/cas/workflow/engine/TaskQuerier.java,
> > line 130
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/4961/diff/1/?file=105930#file105930line130>
> >
> > This should return a copy of runnableProcessors here... probably where
> > your synchronization issue is
PERFECT idea! Thanks dude.
> On 2012-05-02 19:20:13, brian Foster wrote:
> > ./trunk/workflow/src/test/org/apache/oodt/cas/workflow/engine/TestTaskQuerier.java,
> > line 60
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/4961/diff/1/?file=105932#file105932line60>
> >
> > getRunnableProcessors() is never null... probably should be a unit-test
> > to insure that functionality
Agreed. Will add.
> On 2012-05-02 19:20:13, brian Foster wrote:
> > ./trunk/workflow/src/test/org/apache/oodt/cas/workflow/engine/TestTaskQuerier.java,
> > line 61
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/4961/diff/1/?file=105932#file105932line61>
> >
> > !querier.getRunnableProcessors().isEmpty()
yep better idea.
> On 2012-05-02 19:20:13, brian Foster wrote:
> > ./trunk/workflow/src/test/org/apache/oodt/cas/workflow/engine/TestTaskQuerier.java,
> > line 79
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/4961/diff/1/?file=105932#file105932line79>
> >
> > When Success/done is passed in, the processor created is incorrect
> > since it has a sub-processor in Queued/waiting
Thoughts on how to fix?
> On 2012-05-02 19:20:13, brian Foster wrote:
> > ./trunk/workflow/src/test/org/apache/oodt/cas/workflow/engine/TestTaskQuerier.java,
> > line 125
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/4961/diff/1/?file=105932#file105932line125>
> >
> > Should probably add a NOT done processor here
Yep good idea. Will add.
- Chris
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/4961/#review7482
-----------------------------------------------------------
On 2012-05-02 05:08:45, Chris Mattmann wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/4961/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated 2012-05-02 05:08:45)
>
>
> Review request for oodt, brian Foster, Ricky Nguyen, Paul Ramirez, Sheryl
> John, and Thomas Bennett.
>
>
> Summary
> -------
>
> Task Querier thread for OODT-310. See javadocs on:
> https://builds.apache.org/job/oodt-trunk/javadoc/org/apache/oodt/cas/workflow/engine/TaskQuerier.html
>
>
> This addresses bug OODT-310.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OODT-310
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
>
> ./trunk/workflow/src/main/java/org/apache/oodt/cas/workflow/engine/TaskQuerier.java
> 1332505
>
> ./trunk/workflow/src/main/java/org/apache/oodt/cas/workflow/engine/WorkflowProcessor.java
> 1331866
>
> ./trunk/workflow/src/test/org/apache/oodt/cas/workflow/engine/TestTaskQuerier.java
> PRE-CREATION
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/4961/diff
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> Includes unit test, that currently isn't passing. I think I know why
> (something up with my threading logic and synchronized keywords) but wanted
> to throw it up for review. I'll likely be working on this tomorrow or the
> following evening.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
>
>
