> On March 31, 2016, 9:20 a.m., Dmitriy Shirchenko wrote:
> > src/main/python/apache/aurora/common/health_check/shell.py, line 60
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/45506/diff/2/?file=1320188#file1320188line60>
> >
> >     why did you get rid of .format? i personally find it much clearer to 
> > understand so would you please justify this decision.
> >     
> >     some refs:
> >     http://stackoverflow.com/a/5082482
> >     talk of deprecating % altogether in python3 and explicit mention for 
> > using .format.
> >     https://docs.python.org/3/whatsnew/2.6.html#pep-3101

That may be true, but `%` is still the predominant pattern in this codebase for 
string formatting.
```console
$ grep -R '.format(' src/{main,test}/python | wc -l
       3
$ grep -R ' % ' src/{main,test}/python | wc -l
     785
```
I tend to follow the convention until a mass switch takes place.  Patches 
welcome :-)


> On March 31, 2016, 9:20 a.m., Dmitriy Shirchenko wrote:
> > src/main/python/apache/aurora/common/health_check/shell.py, line 74
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/45506/diff/2/?file=1320188#file1320188line74>
> >
> >     :nit .format instead of interpolation.

Ditto per above.


> On March 31, 2016, 9:20 a.m., Dmitriy Shirchenko wrote:
> > src/main/python/apache/aurora/common/health_check/shell.py, line 66
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/45506/diff/2/?file=1320188#file1320188line66>
> >
> >     why are you doing a separate try/except with timeout when 
> > subprocess.Popen already supports it.
> >     
> >     you can still do a kill if that's your intention in one swoop.

I'm generally a fan of scoping exceptions to catch only where they are known to 
be thrown.  If `Popen.__init__` and `Popen.wait` threw the same exception type, 
i would probably put them in the same `try`, but in this case they are distinct.

However, i'm not sure what you mean by 'Popen already supports it', so it's 
possible i'm missing something.


- Bill


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/45506/#review126326
-----------------------------------------------------------


On March 30, 2016, 4:41 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, 4:41 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/common/health_check/test_shell.py 
> 7026af8c4671a40f4b517ecf12149eac34a552c8 
>   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