> On Sept. 11, 2012, 5:32 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
> > src/tests/logging_tests.cpp, line 40
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/7008/diff/1/?file=152517#file152517line40>
> >
> >     hm.. I see why you did this, no simple/clean way to not hardcode this

We should make this easier at some point ...


> On Sept. 11, 2012, 5:32 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
> > third_party/libprocess/include/process/process.hpp, line 252
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/7008/diff/1/?file=152520#file152520line252>
> >
> >     one line?
> >     
> >     P.S. I haven't noticed these javadoc style comments:
> >     /**
> >       * @param foo ...
> >       */
> >     
> >     Do you still encourage commenting in this manner?

I don't discourage it, but we don't require it either.


- Benjamin


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/7008/#review11334
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Sept. 11, 2012, 5:44 a.m., Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/7008/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Sept. 11, 2012, 5:44 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos and Ben Mahler.
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Used new ASSERT/EXPECT_FUTURE_* within some existing tests as well as added 
> ASSERT/EXPECT_FUTURE_WILL_EQ and EXPECT_RESPONSE_BODY_WILL_EQ. Also added new 
> tests for logging HTTP interface thanks to process::http::get.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/Makefile.am b73a024 
>   src/tests/files_tests.cpp 6ef2004 
>   src/tests/logging_tests.cpp PRE-CREATION 
>   src/tests/utils.hpp 79999b5 
>   src/tests/zookeeper_tests.cpp 19c2dfa 
>   third_party/libprocess/include/process/process.hpp 76da79b 
>   third_party/libprocess/src/process.cpp 2d2b56c 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/7008/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Benjamin Hindman
> 
>

Reply via email to