> On March 30, 2016, 3:07 p.m., John Sirois wrote:
> > There is code to do this in apache.thermos.core.process.Process and its 
> > tested here: 
> > https://github.com/apache/aurora/blob/master/src/test/python/apache/thermos/core/test_process.py#L103
> > Process (ProcessBase) does look a bit fat for this, but it would be nice if 
> > there was eventually 1 tested piece of code for executing an un-priviledged 
> > process in the task sandbox.

I agree that it would be preferable.  I admit i only did a quick pass through 
`Process`, but backed away because it does not support a timeout, and wants to 
write several files to disk (including the checkpoint stream).  I could 
certainly retrofit it to do that, but it was hard to justify.


- Bill


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/45506/#review126206
-----------------------------------------------------------


On March 30, 2016, 2:58 p.m., Bill Farner wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/45506/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated March 30, 2016, 2:58 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Aurora, Dmitriy Shirchenko and Zameer Manji.
> 
> 
> Bugs: AURORA-1641
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-1641
> 
> 
> Repository: aurora
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Here's a stab at this using `os` and `pwd` modules directly to demote health 
> checks to the target user.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/main/python/apache/aurora/common/health_check/shell.py 
> 6cb7dfc164f4e16143fc974d50c19a5887d32015 
>   src/main/python/apache/aurora/executor/common/health_checker.py 
> 28fd3ec3ef7d0b66621c0295804af0eb72c64b4a 
>   src/test/python/apache/aurora/executor/common/test_health_checker.py 
> 19c4f76347e34374c29974c182d1f4c118bcb18d 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/45506/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> I haven't spent any time thinking of a test strategy for this, but i don't 
> think we should proceed without end-to-end validation.  I'm open to ideas 
> here.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bill Farner
> 
>

Reply via email to