----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/35438/#review87905 -----------------------------------------------------------
Ship it! src/tests/fetcher_cache_tests.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/35438/#comment140318> Would it make sense here to add the underlying failure reason here any everywhere else, if available? ``` return Error("Failed to wait for resource offers: " + (offers.isFailed ? offers.failure() : "discarded")); ``` src/tests/fetcher_cache_tests.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/35438/#comment140319> See above. src/tests/fetcher_cache_tests.cpp <https://reviews.apache.org/r/35438/#comment140320> Can we get this comment into some more explicit form that also follows our styleguide? - Till Toenshoff On June 15, 2015, 8:52 a.m., Bernd Mathiske wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/35438/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated June 15, 2015, 8:52 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Till Toenshoff, Timothy Chen, and > Vinod Kone. > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Follow up to RR https://reviews.apache.org/r/35247/, which was not good > enough, fixed only one of two problems. > > Using DeclineOffers() instead of Return() should make the master resend > offers so we can launch tasks. See line 205 below. > > Following Jie's suggestion, no more CHECK_READY inside launchTask(s)(), but > we return a Try instead and follow call sites with EXPECT_SOME(task(s)). > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/tests/fetcher_cache_tests.cpp 8bd5dd847fb189d0eeeaa760d3ec8ce3af1c2392 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/35438/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > Bernd Mathiske > >
