> On June 9, 2015, 11:11 a.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
> > src/tests/fetcher_cache_tests.cpp, lines 360-361
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/35247/diff/1/?file=981340#file981340line360>
> >
> >     Why not just do AWAIT_READY(offers)?

That does not compile here, because it contains a "return" of type void and 
that does not match the return type of "launch()".


> On June 9, 2015, 11:11 a.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
> > src/tests/fetcher_cache_tests.cpp, lines 201-207
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/35247/diff/1/?file=981340#file981340line201>
> >
> >     While this looks good as a temporary fix, what is the long term 
> > strategy here?
> >     
> >     I really don't like setting expectations in SetUp() or TearDown() 
> > because it's really hard to reason about in the individual tests. For 
> > example, why did you set expecations on registered and offers but not 
> > others? I prefer to move these expectations to tests. 
> >     
> >     Also, this SetUp() is doing too much (starting slave, starting master, 
> > constructing scheduler but not starting it, setting some expectations) and 
> > there is no documentation for it!

Long term I am working on developing up stress tests for the fetcher. These are 
still relatively basic functionality tests so far.

Yes, SetUp() and TearDown() do a lot here. Would you prefer a) inlining them or 
b) commenting what they do more or c) both? In my experience a) would be most 
consistent with existing patterns, but it makes it harder to spot what the 
different tests are doing besides all the code that is always the same. And the 
general code blowup would be rather substantial in this test series.


> On June 9, 2015, 11:11 a.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
> > src/tests/fetcher_cache_tests.cpp, lines 77-78
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/35247/diff/1/?file=981340#file981340line77>
> >
> >     reorder

thx. will fix.


- Bernd


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/35247/#review87235
-----------------------------------------------------------


On June 9, 2015, 2:32 a.m., Bernd Mathiske wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/35247/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated June 9, 2015, 2:32 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Till Toenshoff, and Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-2815, MESOS-2829 and MESOS-2831
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2815
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2829
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2831
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Fixed race between EXPECT_CALL(resourceOffers, _) and driver.start() in 
> fetcher_cache_tests.cpp.
> 
> Installed a default response that provides teporary cover for this mocked 
> method until we install more interesting callbacks later. This prevents gmock 
> from complaining about an "uninteresting gmock call", which led to a variety 
> of tests failing due to offers not getting through subsequently.
> 
> All fetcher cache tests have been affected by this race and should be fixed 
> in this regard now.
> 
> (Also fixed some typos.)
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/tests/fetcher_cache_tests.cpp cbd44b98d19953d174fac977f509d4900a37481f 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/35247/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bernd Mathiske
> 
>

Reply via email to