----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/53684/#review155849 -----------------------------------------------------------
Fix it, then Ship it! ambari-server/src/main/java/org/apache/ambari/server/api/services/stackadvisor/StackAdvisorHelper.java (line 142) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/53684/#comment225942> Instead of cast to inetger here, the config should return int value, this make the configuration item easy to read since this can never be anything other than an integer. requestId is already an int so why the manual-boxing? - Sid Wagle On Nov. 14, 2016, 9:13 p.m., Madhuvanthi Radhakrishnan wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/53684/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Nov. 14, 2016, 9:13 p.m.) > > > Review request for Ambari, Sumit Mohanty and Swapan Shridhar. > > > Bugs: AMBARI-18866 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMBARI-18866 > > > Repository: ambari > > > Description > ------- > > Applied logic for rolling over during creation of recommendations artifacts > greater than a certain set limit. > > > Diffs > ----- > > > ambari-server/src/main/java/org/apache/ambari/server/api/services/stackadvisor/StackAdvisorHelper.java > e175c69 > > ambari-server/src/main/java/org/apache/ambari/server/configuration/Configuration.java > 6cc4120 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/53684/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > 1. Set the recommendations.artifacts.rollovermax = 5 > Expected : Calls to stack advisor > 5 roll over starting from 0 again. Hence > at any point of time there will be upto 5 folders only in > /var/run/ambari-server/stack-recommendations > 2. Do not set this value > Expected : Defaults to 100 > 3. Set the recommendations.artifacts.rollovermax = 0 > Expected : Defaults to 100 > > On ambari-server restart, the ids are reset as before. > > > Thanks, > > Madhuvanthi Radhakrishnan > >
