> On Feb. 23, 2015, 2:44 p.m., Bill Farner wrote:
> > src/test/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/thrift/Fixtures.java, line 73
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/31176/diff/2/?file=873063#file873063line73>
> >
> >     how about NO_LOCK?

How would you feel about null? This was a tool-based refactor, but I don't see 
the value in holding a null reference here.


- Kevin


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/31176/#review73698
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Feb. 23, 2015, 2:41 p.m., Kevin Sweeney wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/31176/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Feb. 23, 2015, 2:41 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Aurora and Bill Farner.
> 
> 
> Bugs: AURORA-808
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-808
> 
> 
> Repository: aurora
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Split out ReadOnlySchedulerImplTest.
> 
> * Factored out a common Fixtures class for Thrift test data (not married to 
> the name).
> * Added a unit test for LoggingInterceptor (preferable to relying on 
> SchedulerThriftInterfaceTest to test it indirectly).
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   
> src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/thrift/aop/LoggingInterceptor.java 
> 6484642b6416466807f76267d66941c9cf7b3346 
>   src/test/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/thrift/Fixtures.java PRE-CREATION 
>   
> src/test/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/thrift/ReadOnlySchedulerImplTest.java
>  PRE-CREATION 
>   
> src/test/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/thrift/SchedulerThriftInterfaceTest.java
>  15147757dfca889f5b5b5ec6967dda98ddfe3075 
>   
> src/test/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/thrift/aop/LoggingInterceptorTest.java
>  PRE-CREATION 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/31176/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> ./gradlew -Pq build
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Kevin Sweeney
> 
>

Reply via email to