Alexey Serbin has posted comments on this change. ( 
http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/11488 )

Change subject: [tools] ksck checksums: Factor out of main ksck code
......................................................................


Patch Set 8:

(9 comments)

http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/11488/6//COMMIT_MSG
Commit Message:

http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/11488/6//COMMIT_MSG@7
PS6, Line 7: of
nit: maybe, drop this?  From the other side, I might be just not familiar with 
the usage of 'factor out' as a noun.


http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/11488/6//COMMIT_MSG@10
PS6, Line 10: out
nit: drop?


http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/11488/6/src/kudu/integration-tests/cluster_verifier.cc
File src/kudu/integration-tests/cluster_verifier.cc:

http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/11488/6/src/kudu/integration-tests/cluster_verifier.cc@55
PS6, Line 55: checksum_options_(tools::KsckChecksumOptions()),
nit: maybe, drop this line and reorder the fields of the class in the 
declaration?  It's just a tiny nit, so feel free to ignore.


http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/11488/6/src/kudu/tools/ksck.cc
File src/kudu/tools/ksck.cc:

http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/11488/6/src/kudu/tools/ksck.cc@637
PS6, Line 637:   // Don't ruin JSON output by printing progress updates.
             :   auto* out_for_progress_updates = IsNonJSONFormat() ? out_ : 
nullptr;
             :   bool timed_out = !reporter->WaitFor(options.timeout, 
out_for_progress_updates);
This is a small, but functional update, isn't it?  If so, consider updating the 
commit message correspondingly.


http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/11488/8/src/kudu/tools/ksck_checksum.h
File src/kudu/tools/ksck_checksum.h:

http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/11488/8/src/kudu/tools/ksck_checksum.h@46
PS8, Line 46:   // A checksum initially set to use this special timestamp will 
actually use
            :   // a snapshot timestamp selected by some tablet server involved 
in the scan.
nit: this looks a bit complicated to me.  How about rephrasing this as


A checksum with this special timestamp will use a timestamp selected by one of 
tablet servers performing the snapshot scan.


http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/11488/8/src/kudu/tools/ksck_checksum.h@144
PS8, Line 144:     scoped_refptr<ChecksumResultReporter> reporter,
             :     std::shared_ptr<KsckTabletServer> tablet_server,
             :     SharedTabletQueue queue,
             :     std::string tablet_id,
             :
nit: here the indent is supposed to be additional 4 spaces, I think.


http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/11488/6/src/kudu/tools/ksck_checksum.cc
File src/kudu/tools/ksck_checksum.cc:

http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/11488/6/src/kudu/tools/ksck_checksum.cc@108
PS6, Line 108: For(
> Note that on L105 we WaitFor'd for up to 5000ms, so L101's Now() is probabl
Woops, indeed.


http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/11488/8/src/kudu/tools/ksck_checksum.cc
File src/kudu/tools/ksck_checksum.cc:

http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/11488/8/src/kudu/tools/ksck_checksum.cc@116
PS8, Line 116: run_time_sec,
nit: maybe, use HumanReadableElapsedTime::ToShortString((MonoTime::Now() - 
start).ToSeconds()) instead?  You could drop the run_time_sec variable and 
extra "s" in the message format: "...$0 $1s..." --> "...$0 $1..."


http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/11488/8/src/kudu/tools/ksck_checksum.cc@132
PS8, Line 132: :
nit: move this into the next line



--
To view, visit http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/11488
To unsubscribe, visit http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/settings

Gerrit-Project: kudu
Gerrit-Branch: master
Gerrit-MessageType: comment
Gerrit-Change-Id: I4bb1f51af22ab0c6c20b9426dbb62ea48413ed5b
Gerrit-Change-Number: 11488
Gerrit-PatchSet: 8
Gerrit-Owner: Will Berkeley <[email protected]>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Alexey Serbin <[email protected]>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Andrew Wong <[email protected]>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Attila Bukor <[email protected]>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Grant Henke <[email protected]>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Kudu Jenkins
Gerrit-Reviewer: Tidy Bot
Gerrit-Reviewer: Todd Lipcon <[email protected]>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Will Berkeley <[email protected]>
Gerrit-Comment-Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2018 05:37:00 +0000
Gerrit-HasComments: Yes

Reply via email to