Alexey Serbin has posted comments on this change.

Change subject: KUDU-1988: add support for advertised host:port info.
......................................................................


Patch Set 10:

(10 comments)

http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/6827/10/src/kudu/master/master.cc
File src/kudu/master/master.cc:

PS10, Line 241: web_server()->GetAdvertisedAddresses
Does it make sense to check for return code in this  case?


http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/6827/10/src/kudu/server/rpc_server-test.cc
File src/kudu/server/rpc_server-test.cc:

Line 19: 
nit: consider adding at least

#include <memory>
#include <vector>

#include <gtest/gtest.h>

#include "kudu/util/net/sockaddr.h"


PS10, Line 38: string advertised = use_advertised_addresses();
nit: consider moving this after that if (!bind.empty()) { ... } closure


PS10, Line 50:   
nit: strange shift (supposed to be 4 spaces)


PS10, Line 55:   
nit: strange shift (supposed to be 4 spaces)


PS10, Line 66: const string
nit: what's use to return const by value?  Maybe, turn this into 'const 
string&' ?  or 'const char*' ?


PS10, Line 91: advertised_addrs.size(), 1
here is elsewhere in this file: the expected value should come first, that 
really helps when reading output when assertion fires.


PS10, Line 94:   ASSERT_EQ(advertised_addrs[0].host(), "127.0.0.1");
             :   ASSERT_EQ(advertised_addrs[0].port(), 9999);
nit for here and elsewhere in the test: I think for readability it would be 
better to place those asserts close to the place where advertised_addrs are 
set, i.e. just after ASSERT_EQ(1, advertised_addrs.size());


PS10, Line 96: bound_addrs[0]
does it make sense to add an assert on the size of bound_addrs prior to 
accessing its first element?


http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/6827/10/src/kudu/server/rpc_server.cc
File src/kudu/server/rpc_server.cc:

PS10, Line 45: DEFINE_string(rpc_bind_addresses, "0.0.0.0",
             :               "Comma-separated list of addresses to bind to for 
RPC connections. "
             :               "Currently, ephemeral ports (i.e. port 0) are not 
allowed.");
             : TAG_FLAG(rpc_bind_addresses, stable);
             : 
             : DEFINE_string(rpc_advertised_addresses, "",
             :               "Comma-separated list of addresses to advertise 
externally for RPC connections. "
             :               "Currently, ephemeral ports (i.e. port 0) are not 
allowed.");
             : TAG_FLAG(rpc_advertised_addresses, advanced);
Should advertised addresses be a subset of bind addresses?  If yes, consider 
adding a group validator on that.


-- 
To view, visit http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/6827
To unsubscribe, visit http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/settings

Gerrit-MessageType: comment
Gerrit-Change-Id: I6735ca5630fc4c426bf72d0b21d6ef452173a890
Gerrit-PatchSet: 10
Gerrit-Project: kudu
Gerrit-Branch: master
Gerrit-Owner: Patrik Sundberg <[email protected]>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Adar Dembo <[email protected]>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Alexey Serbin <[email protected]>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Dan Burkert <[email protected]>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Hao Hao <[email protected]>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Kudu Jenkins
Gerrit-Reviewer: Patrik Sundberg <[email protected]>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Tidy Bot
Gerrit-HasComments: Yes

Reply via email to