----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/10161/#review19264 -----------------------------------------------------------
src/detector/detector.hpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/10161/#comment39876> Why did you kill the comment? This has been our convention. src/tests/zookeeper_tests.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/10161/#comment39879> I like this test! But, wouldn't this test pass even with old code? I thought (correct me if I'm wrong) this patch makes sure a non-leading master gets NoMasterDetected message? If yes, a test for that would be great. src/tests/zookeeper_tests.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/10161/#comment39877> Is there a reason why you had specifically match to detector.process and not just "_"? if you can use "_" here then you can make process back to private. src/tests/zookeeper_tests.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/10161/#comment39878> Can you use AWAIT_READY instead since this is getting deprecated? - Vinod Kone On April 16, 2013, 12:40 a.m., Ben Mahler wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/10161/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated April 16, 2013, 12:40 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman and Vinod Kone. > > > Description > ------- > > This is also along the way to fixing MESOS-305. > > This fixes a bug where we were not clearing the sequence number when sending > a NoMasterDetectedMessage. > As a result, this removes the need for hiding NoMasterDetectedMessages from > contending non-leaders. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/detector/detector.hpp ed485bd86d2bff1046a234a5776c1081a4136bc5 > src/detector/detector.cpp 7a8355162d543e017505dd58efd2d7bf96f99623 > src/tests/zookeeper_tests.cpp 37e1b77a9c728034936eddd451c75a46605885db > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/10161/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > I'd like to add a test for this, but I don't see how to induce a timedout() > call on the ZooKeeperMasterDetectorProcess, unless I add some plumbing to get > a handle to the underlying process. Suggestions? > > > Thanks, > > Ben Mahler > >
