> On May 11, 2015, 12:12 p.m., Timothy Chen wrote:
> > src/tests/slave_tests.cpp, line 325
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/33249/diff/7/?file=955468#file955468line325>
> >
> >     I don't really understand this comment? And if you simply pause the 
> > clock your await won't work right?

I'm starting to question the legitmaticy of this test anyway.  What it really 
ends up testing is the TestContainerizer, and that makes no sense.  So I'm just 
going to remove the whole thing.

Also, it currently doesn't work (see ReviewBot's previous post) because 
EXPECT_CALL seems to cause _launch to never get invoked.


- Jay


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/33249/#review83265
-----------------------------------------------------------


On May 11, 2015, 10:10 a.m., Jay Buffington wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/33249/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated May 11, 2015, 10:10 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Jie Yu, and Timothy Chen.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-2020 and MESOS-2656
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2020
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2656
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Send statusUpdate to scheduler on containerizer launch failure
> 
> This review is actually for three commits.  The three commits are separated 
> out on github here:
> https://github.com/apache/mesos/compare/master...jaybuff:report-launch-failure?expand=1
> 
> Commit #1:
> docker-no-executor-framework example should send ContainerInfo
> 
> docker-no-executor-framework stopped working when the protobuf message
> changed during development.  Apparently noone noticed because we don't
> run it as part of our test suite.  I used it to develop a fix for
> proper error reporting, so I fixed it.
> 
> Commit #2:
> serialize wait and destroy in containerizer
> 
> Containerizers keep track of all the containers they have created.  When
> a container is destroy()'ed the containerizer removes the container from
> its internal hashmap.  This means that wait() must be called before the
> container is destroyed.
> 
> When the docker containerizer fails because of a "docker pull" or
> "docker run" failure, we end up with a race condition where wait() does
> not properly return the Termination, so we ended up with a default
> failure message of "Abnormal Executor Termination" which isn't very
> useful.
> 
> This commit solves this issue by not destroying the container until
> after wait is called in the failure case.
> 
> Fixes MESOS-2656
> 
> Commit #3:
> send scheduler containerizer launch failure errors
> 
> If a method in the launch sequence returns a failure the error message
> wasn't making it back to the scheduler.
> 
> Fixes MESOS-2020
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   include/mesos/containerizer/containerizer.proto 
> 95c84dfbecef28ca9a220a98293c5fc6215a692f 
>   src/examples/docker_no_executor_framework.cpp 
> d5385d9295d30a6039bab9938f3270006582d3da 
>   src/slave/containerizer/containerizer.hpp 
> 56c088abb036aa26c323c3142fd27ea29ed51d4f 
>   src/slave/containerizer/docker.hpp b25ec55bf3cd30d6e8a804d09d90c632a7d12e3f 
>   src/slave/containerizer/docker.cpp f9fc89ad7e3c853c3f9f6dcf9aa68e54dc1888c6 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/containerizer.hpp 
> 5e5f13ed8a71ff9510b40b6032d00fd16d312622 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/containerizer.cpp 
> f2587280dc0e1d566d2b856a80358c7b3896c603 
>   src/slave/slave.cpp c78ee3c9e7fc38ad364e83f4abe267e86bfbbc13 
>   src/tests/docker_containerizer_tests.cpp 
> c9d66b3fbc7d081f36c26781573dca50de823c44 
>   src/tests/slave_tests.cpp 04e79ec061e767a82d40242be7884967942c50b6 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/33249/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> I used examples/docker_no_executor_framework.cpp, and wrote a few tests and 
> ran make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jay Buffington
> 
>

Reply via email to