> On Aug. 5, 2015, 4:16 a.m., Artem Harutyunyan wrote:
> > src/tests/containerizer/isolator_tests.cpp, line 1269
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/36979/diff/1/?file=1026037#file1026037line1269>
> >
> >     You are right that the awk did not actually seem to accomplish anything 
> > meaningful here.

my major concern is that these are ROOT Container tests that won't be run on 
OSX (and won't be run often either) - so wanted to mark it, as if the test 
fails we know who to blame (me!)

I'll double check on an Ubuntu server too.


> On Aug. 5, 2015, 4:16 a.m., Artem Harutyunyan wrote:
> > src/tests/containerizer/port_mapping_tests.cpp, lines 971-974
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/36979/diff/1/?file=1026038#file1026038line971>
> >
> >     Another illustration of why a tuple return type might be a better 
> > option for os::shell() :-)
> >     
> >     But regardless, I'd change this code to something more suggestive (it's 
> > a test case after all), or at least would add a comment that clarifies the 
> > intention.

Added a comment, that was sorely needed, you're right!
As for the tuple, that's what `process::Subprocess` will be for.
We assume that `os::shell` usage is when one wants to just run a command and 
only cares: did it succeed?
(this was actually the **only** place in the code base where anyone cared about 
the exit code, believe it or not).


> On Aug. 5, 2015, 4:16 a.m., Artem Harutyunyan wrote:
> > src/tests/containerizer/port_mapping_tests.cpp, line 986
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/36979/diff/1/?file=1026038#file1026038line986>
> >
> >     ditto. 
> >     + extra newline.

Having looked at both tests, I was being unnecessarily pedantic IMO: checking 
for the error code (256) to be present in the error string seems to me to be 
more than sufficient (and self-explanatory too - but added a comment all the 
same).

What thinks you?


- Marco


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36979/#review94177
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Aug. 5, 2015, 12:55 a.m., Marco Massenzio wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/36979/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Aug. 5, 2015, 12:55 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman and Artem Harutyunyan.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-3142
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-3142
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Updating all references to os::shell
> For more details see MESOS-3142.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/hdfs/hdfs.hpp a070c3200f0a0ac48ec86451749c7faf10c7f6a7 
>   src/master/main.cpp e05a472b86170eb26df26aaa4b65437fcdd413ce 
>   src/slave/containerizer/isolators/network/port_mapping.cpp 
> 3f6e9df8711995d0dd3903c6170fdd5ad61aac5a 
>   src/tests/containerizer/isolator_tests.cpp 
> ff6e2b7e190a58a4809d6e71addb15dabe418e17 
>   src/tests/containerizer/port_mapping_tests.cpp 
> 4bee74acba2b1472c80cabbc9d0384bd04c543aa 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/36979/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> *Note*: this patch fixes breakages introduce by the refactoring in: 
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/36978
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Marco Massenzio
> 
>

Reply via email to