-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/47130/#review132420
-----------------------------------------------------------


Ship it!




Ship It!

- Jonathan Hurley


On May 10, 2016, 6:35 a.m., Nate Cole wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/47130/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated May 10, 2016, 6:35 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Ambari, Alejandro Fernandez, Dmitro Lisnichenko, Jonathan 
> Hurley, and Jayush Luniya.
> 
> 
> Bugs: AMBARI-16380
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMBARI-16380
> 
> 
> Repository: ambari
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> The ServiceCheck prerequisite check was checking all service checks, not 
> solely the most recent ones.  So even if Service Checks were run again, the 
> prereq check was still failing on the old runs:
> 
> * Changed the query to only pull back SERVICE_CHECK records using a Predicate.
> * Considered a stale config check, but that was adding complexity where none 
> is needed (debatable).
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   
> ambari-server/src/main/java/org/apache/ambari/server/checks/ServiceCheckValidityCheck.java
>  8b39863 
>   
> ambari-server/src/test/java/org/apache/ambari/server/checks/ServiceCheckValidityCheckTest.java
>  4a3ae5c 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/47130/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Manual.  Automated:
> 
> Tests run: 4304, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 34
> 
> [INFO] 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [INFO] BUILD SUCCESS
> [INFO] 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [INFO] Total time: 38:25.682s
> [INFO] Finished at: Mon May 09 15:46:16 EDT 2016
> [INFO] Final Memory: 35M/700M
> [INFO] 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Nate Cole
> 
>

Reply via email to