-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/61381/#review182017
-----------------------------------------------------------


Fix it, then Ship it!





ambari-server/src/main/java/org/apache/ambari/server/controller/internal/ServiceResourceProvider.java
Lines 1082 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/61381/#comment257828>

    Should we do the check here for PATCH, or just assume that if parent ID is 
not null, then we take the parent? I'm just seeing the day we add a new type 
which fails this check (such as MAINT or ROLLUP)?



ambari-server/src/main/java/org/apache/ambari/server/controller/internal/ServiceResourceProvider.java
Lines 1095 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/61381/#comment257829>

    Let's put an INFO level message here just for sanity so we know what 
happened and what we're doing ...


- Jonathan Hurley


On Aug. 2, 2017, 2 p.m., Nate Cole wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/61381/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Aug. 2, 2017, 2 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Ambari, Dmitro Lisnichenko and Jonathan Hurley.
> 
> 
> Bugs: AMBARI-21639
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMBARI-21639
> 
> 
> Repository: ambari
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Makes a best-guess to find the STANDARD repository to use when adding 
> services.  This assumption may change in the future, but it unblocks the UI 
> from a ton of workaround in branch-2.6.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   
> ambari-server/src/main/java/org/apache/ambari/server/controller/internal/ServiceResourceProvider.java
>  b1f00e671d 
>   
> ambari-server/src/test/java/org/apache/ambari/server/controller/internal/ServiceResourceProviderTest.java
>  a0c58eaf34 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/61381/diff/1/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Manual.  Automated pending.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Nate Cole
> 
>

Reply via email to