-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/41804/#review112365
-----------------------------------------------------------


Master (aac7aad) is red with this patch.
  ./build-support/jenkins/build.sh

                               run_count = 3
                               interval = 15
                               observer = TaskObserver(mock_detector, 
interval=Amount(interval, Time.SECONDS))
                               observer.start()
                               while len(mock_wait.mock_calls) < 
run_count:
                                 pass
                         
                               observer.stop()
                         
                     >         assert len(mock_task_detector.mock_calls) >= 
run_count
                     E         AssertionError: assert 2 >= 3
                     E          +  where 2 = len([call.refresh(), 
call.refresh()])
                     E          +    where [call.refresh(), 
call.refresh()] = <MagicMock spec='ObserverTaskDetector' 
id='139966311777616'>.mock_calls
                     
                     
src/test/python/apache/thermos/observer/test_task_observer.py:42: AssertionError
                      generated xml file: 
/home/jenkins/jenkins-slave/workspace/AuroraBot/dist/test-results/src.test.python.apache.thermos.observer.observer.xml
 
                     ======= 1 failed, 3 passed in 0.25 seconds 
=======
                     
                     src.test.python.apache.aurora.admin.admin                  
                     .....   SUCCESS
                     src.test.python.apache.aurora.client.client                
                     .....   SUCCESS
                     src.test.python.apache.aurora.client.cli.cli               
                     .....   SUCCESS
                     src.test.python.apache.aurora.client.hooks.hooks           
                     .....   SUCCESS
                     
src.test.python.apache.aurora.common.health_check.health_check                  
.....   SUCCESS
                     src.test.python.apache.aurora.config.config                
                     .....   SUCCESS
                     src.test.python.apache.aurora.executor.executor            
                     .....   SUCCESS
                     src.test.python.apache.aurora.executor.bin.bin             
                     .....   SUCCESS
                     src.test.python.apache.aurora.executor.common.common       
                     .....   SUCCESS
                     src.test.python.apache.aurora.tools.tools                  
                     .....   SUCCESS
                     src.test.python.apache.thermos.cli.cli                     
                     .....   SUCCESS
                     src.test.python.apache.thermos.cli.commands.commands       
                     .....   SUCCESS
                     src.test.python.apache.thermos.config.config               
                     .....   SUCCESS
                     src.test.python.apache.thermos.core.core                   
                     .....   SUCCESS
                     src.test.python.apache.thermos.monitoring.monitoring       
                     .....   SUCCESS
                     src.test.python.apache.thermos.observer.observer           
                     .....   FAILURE
                     src.test.python.apache.thermos.observer.http.http          
                     .....   SUCCESS
FAILURE


00:14:12 04:10   [complete]
               FAILURE


I will refresh this build result if you post a review containing "@ReviewBot 
retry"

- Aurora ReviewBot


On Dec. 31, 2015, 12:03 a.m., Bill Farner wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/41804/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Dec. 31, 2015, 12:03 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Aurora, John Sirois and Zameer Manji.
> 
> 
> Repository: aurora
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> This begins to define a proposed replacement args API, from the perspective 
> of the code consuming args.  Args will be defined in interfaces, which the 
> eventual arg system will be responsible for implementing on the fly 
> (mechanism TBD).  So while what is seen here is a large net increase in code, 
> the eventual conclusion will be roughly equivalent in terms of lines of code 
> in `Module`s.
> 
> There are a few goals with the replacement:
> - sidestep current development hurdles we have encountered with the args 
> system (intellij/gradle not working nicely with apt)
> - leverage a well-maintained third-party argument parsing library
> - encourage better testability of Module classes by always injecting all args
> - enable user-friendly features like logical option groups for better 
> help/usage output
> - stretch: enable alternative configuration inputs like a configuration file 
> or environment variables
> 
> The rough plan of action is as follows (if the proposal looks good):
> 1. repeat this patch for all other `@CmdLine` declaration sites (28 files) 
> 2. introduce a 'boot' `Injector` that is loaded with bindings for these 
> params implementations (i.e. centralize the `new ExecutorModuleParams() { .. 
> }` boilerplate you see here
> 3. replace the args backend
>   (a) remove `@CmdLine Arg<>` declarations, moving help text to annotations 
> on interface methods
>   (b) implement a system to inject proxies that implement params classes 
> based on arg values, and binds them for injection
> 
> Given that this is a large multi-stage effort, i may opt to implement it on a 
> branch and land it all at once in a stream of commits to avoid 
> churn/confusion in the meantime.  Open to thoughts on that.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   
> src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/configuration/executor/ExecutorModule.java
>  949c299bdbc54f976db994266fb97f3099256f13 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/41804/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bill Farner
> 
>

Reply via email to