-----------------------------------------------------------
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
> 
>

Reply via email to