> On Jan. 26, 2015, 10:14 a.m., Aurora ReviewBot wrote: > > Master (7ba6226) is red with this patch. > > ./build-support/jenkins/build.sh > > > > :assemble > > :compileJmhJavawarning: Supported source version 'RELEASE_6' from > > annotation processor 'org.openjdk.jmh.generators.BenchmarkProcessor' less > > than -source '1.7' > > 1 warning > > > > :processJmhResources UP-TO-DATE > > :jmhClasses > > :checkstyleJmh > > :jsHint > > :checkstyleMain > > :compileTestJava > > :processTestResources > > :testClasses > > :checkstyleTest > > :findbugsJmh > > :findbugsMain > > :findbugsTest > > :licenseJmh UP-TO-DATE > > :licenseMain UP-TO-DATE > > :licenseTest UP-TO-DATE > > :license UP-TO-DATE > > :pmdMain > > :test > > :jacocoTestReport > > Coverage report generated: > > file:///home/jenkins/jenkins-slave/workspace/AuroraBot/dist/reports/jacoco/test/html/index.html > > :analyzeReport > > Instruction coverage of 0.8917038316949588 exceeds minimum coverage of 0.89. > > :analyzeReport FAILED > > > > FAILURE: Build failed with an exception. > > > > * What went wrong: > > Execution failed for task ':analyzeReport'. > > > Branch coverage is 0.8343558282208589, but must be greater than 0.835 > > > > * Try: > > Run with --stacktrace option to get the stack trace. Run with --info or > > --debug option to get more log output. > > > > BUILD FAILED > > > > Total time: 3 mins 23.668 secs > > > > > > I will refresh this build result if you post a review containing > > "@ReviewBot retry" > > Bill Farner wrote: > > Branch coverage is 0.8343558282208589, but must be greater than 0.835 > > Please ignore this failure, as you obviously did not affect branch > coverage. Looking into this at > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-1060.
Ugh, the above comment was intended for a different review as this one could affect branch coverage. Bug stands, though, as i don't repro the branch check failure with this diff. - Bill ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/30010/#review69594 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Jan. 25, 2015, 8:10 p.m., Florian Pfeiffer wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/30010/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Jan. 25, 2015, 8:10 p.m.) > > > Review request for Aurora, Bill Farner and Zameer Manji. > > > Bugs: AURORA-184 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-184 > > > Repository: aurora > > > Description > ------- > > [AURORA-184] Remove hardcoded 'host' and 'rack' limit constraints > > This is the first step for AURORA-184, that removes the default host&rack > limit constraints. > The second step that's still missing would be to add s.th. like > "--default-constraints" as start parameter to the scheduler. > > AURORA-174 could probably be closed with this?(since the rack limit > constraint can be configured in the .aurora file) > > I can't really estimate the effect of my changes in > StorageBackfillTest&SchedulerThriftInterfaceTest, please have a closer look > at the changes I did there. > > Since this is also my first code submit, comments about codestyle&other bad > habbits are very appreciated. > > > Diffs > ----- > > > src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/configuration/ConfigurationManager.java > 5dfbcf1f6de716502a28f7da33a095968eb8420e > > src/test/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/configuration/ConfigurationManagerTest.java > 92ba45033ada8114349c435316c9681395aea706 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/30010/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Added test for ConfigurationManager.hasName > Added test testNoHostAndRackConstraintsAdded, that checks if the constraints > are present > Tested on vagrant devcluster to see if constraints are also gone in "real > life" > > > Thanks, > > Florian Pfeiffer > >
