Alexey Serbin has posted comments on this change. ( http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/14221 )
Change subject: KUDU-2069 p3: add RPC endpoint for maintenance mode ...................................................................... Patch Set 2: (8 comments) overall looks good, just a few nits and questions http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/14221/2/src/kudu/master/master.proto File src/kudu/master/master.proto: http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/14221/2/src/kudu/master/master.proto@816 PS2, Line 816: enum StateChange Do we need to use the same way of assigning the default values for this enum as we did elsewhere? UNKNOWN = 0; or something? http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/14221/2/src/kudu/master/master_service.cc File src/kudu/master/master_service.cc: http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/14221/2/src/kudu/master/master_service.cc@98 PS2, Line 98: DEFINE_bool(master_support_maintenance_mode, false, nit: maybe, add TODO about removing this after all the related patches land http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/14221/2/src/kudu/master/master_service.cc@132 PS2, Line 132: the end state of the given 'change'. nit: update the doc -- it returns that into the output parameter, not as return value, right? http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/14221/2/src/kudu/master/master_service.cc@133 PS2, Line 133: ExtractTServerStateFromChangePB nit: as for naming, what do you think of StateChangeToTServerState() ? http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/14221/2/src/kudu/master/ts_state-test.cc File src/kudu/master/ts_state-test.cc: http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/14221/2/src/kudu/master/ts_state-test.cc@323 PS2, Line 323: << s.ToString() nit: if s.ok() is true, not much is going to be reported by s.ToString() by simply OK. Maybe, drop this extra then? http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/14221/2/src/kudu/master/ts_state-test.cc@323 PS2, Line 323: ASSERT_FALSE(s.ok()) Does it make sense to check for specific status code? Or this isn't any common denominator for all cases? http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/14221/2/src/kudu/master/ts_state-test.cc@328 PS2, Line 328: NO_FATALS(send_req_check_failed("must contain tserver state change")); > IMHO, these error messages should be defined as string constants somewhere, I thought tests in that regard should be independent from the source that emits the message. The idea is that test serves as a reference that doesn't change when the implementation changes. If such string literal is used more than once in tests, maybe it makes sense to introduce such a constant for the tests to avoid copying it over. http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/14221/2/src/kudu/master/ts_state-test.cc@339 PS2, Line 339: resp Does it make sense to check for the 'error' in the response even if RPC itself was successfully sent? -- To view, visit http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/14221 To unsubscribe, visit http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/settings Gerrit-Project: kudu Gerrit-Branch: master Gerrit-MessageType: comment Gerrit-Change-Id: I9d565bd745507f2511b91a96d2d446240c5406b5 Gerrit-Change-Number: 14221 Gerrit-PatchSet: 2 Gerrit-Owner: Andrew Wong <[email protected]> Gerrit-Reviewer: Adar Dembo <[email protected]> Gerrit-Reviewer: Alexey Serbin <[email protected]> Gerrit-Reviewer: Andrew Wong <[email protected]> Gerrit-Reviewer: Greg Solovyev <[email protected]> Gerrit-Reviewer: Hao Hao <[email protected]> Gerrit-Reviewer: Kudu Jenkins (120) Gerrit-Comment-Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 01:17:45 +0000 Gerrit-HasComments: Yes
