> On Feb. 15, 2017, 9:05 p.m., Alejandro Fernandez wrote: > > ambari-server/src/main/java/org/apache/ambari/server/checks/DatabaseConsistencyCheckHelper.java, > > line 905 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/56710/diff/1/?file=1634531#file1634531line905> > > > > We shouldn't be hardcoding service names or config types in a check > > like this. > > If this is preventing the user from starting Ambari Server, then we > > should make this type of check be a warning as opposed to a hard error, or > > annotate a service or config-type with a tag to relax its validation in > > this check. > > > > Please add Jayush to the code review. > > Andrew Onischuk wrote: > This a one-case scenario. I would say, adding an xml syntax to > metainfo.xml to Relax on given service for given config-type would be an > overkill.
Agreed for 2.5 we should just address this for RANGER in code. I dont think we can make the DB check a warning if some crucial config types are missing. In the long term we can look at a cleaner solution. - Jayush ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/56710/#review165756 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Feb. 16, 2017, 11:24 a.m., Andrew Onischuk wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/56710/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Feb. 16, 2017, 11:24 a.m.) > > > Review request for Ambari, Dmitro Lisnichenko and Jayush Luniya. > > > Bugs: AMBARI-20024 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMBARI-20024 > > > Repository: ambari > > > Description > ------- > > . > > > Diffs > ----- > > > ambari-server/src/main/java/org/apache/ambari/server/checks/DatabaseConsistencyCheckHelper.java > 878d0fa > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/56710/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > mvn clean test > > > Thanks, > > Andrew Onischuk > >
