-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/63521/#review189940
-----------------------------------------------------------


Ship it!




Ship It!

- Bill Farner


On Nov. 2, 2017, 11:12 a.m., Jordan Ly wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/63521/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Nov. 2, 2017, 11:12 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Aurora, David McLaughlin, Stephan Erb, and Bill Farner.
> 
> 
> Repository: aurora
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> A bug was introduced when the old `MemAttributeStore` was revived. 
> Previously, the `saveHostAttributes` method did not return anything. However, 
> after migrating to the DB stores, the signature of the interface was changed 
> to return a `boolean` if the save modified the previous attributes. The new 
> changes accidentally inverted the order. The old `MemAttributeStoreTest` did 
> not explicity test for this scenario so it went unnoticed.
> 
> The interface involved:
> ```
> /**
>  * Save a host attribute in the attribute store.
>  *
>  * @param hostAttributes The attribute we are going to save.
>  * @return {@code true} if the operation changed the attributes stored for 
> the given
>  *         {@link IHostAttributes#getHost() host}, or {@code false} if the 
> save was a no-op.
>  */
> boolean saveHostAttributes(IHostAttributes hostAttributes);
> ```
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   
> src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/storage/mem/MemAttributeStore.java 
> 483af194787e967a97c908a62889233336407aba 
>   
> src/test/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/storage/AbstractAttributeStoreTest.java
>  34db54be6eecbf0eaeab4fa2a19e6a66469cea88 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/63521/diff/1/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Fixed tests so they take into account the return value of the save.
> Added a test explicity testing this behavior.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jordan Ly
> 
>

Reply via email to