> On Sept. 10, 2015, 9:54 a.m., Michael Park wrote:
> > 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/tests/protobuf_tests.cpp, lines 191-192
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/37827/diff/6/?file=1066089#file1066089line191>
> >
> >     The above test already performs the roundtrip of Protobuf -> JSON -> 
> > Protobuf. Is it beneficial to add an additional conversion to JSON here? 
> > What does it further test?
> 
> Alexander Rukletsov wrote:
>     The rationale here is that equality check for protobufs is not well 
> defined (we do it overselves), hence an additional check via converted `JSON` 
> objects looked to me like a reasonable addition.
> 
> Michael Park wrote:
>     Hm, I see. So I think you're saying that if the protobuf happened to 
> parse incorrectly but the test passed due to a bug in `operator==`, 
> converting it back to `JSON` for the final test could expose that bug. Is 
> that correct?
>     
>     If it is, it doesn't seem like this is the right place to test for that. 
> It would make more sense to me to add a separate test for `operator==` for 
> `SimpleMessage`.
>     In general, I think everything being used in a test aside from the thing 
> being tested should have already been tested for correctness.
>     Since otherwise we would have to test the dependent functions being used 
> in any given test in addition to the thing that's actually being tested.
>     
>     What do you think?

I think you're right. Though it's more work, we should do it properly. Will 
update the RR chain in a while.


- Alexander


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/37827/#review98371
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Sept. 10, 2015, 6:36 p.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/37827/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Sept. 10, 2015, 6:36 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, haosdent huang, Joseph Wu, and Michael Park.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-3312
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-3312
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> See summary.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/tests/protobuf_tests.cpp 
> c56d6a3098293eb3659b3066f10e875927ec3ac3 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/tests/protobuf_tests.pb.h 
> cfc2803e42284f641879fb24bce1282215c8ea52 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/tests/protobuf_tests.pb.cc 
> a1d4084661345f9367c75f9db61279f032b93e69 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/tests/protobuf_tests.proto 
> bbd36d39e9588eb8eea6d739451ad3bab029ca08 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/37827/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check (Mac OS 10.10.4)
> 
> **NOTE**: Filed 
> [MESOS-3323](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-3323) to clean up 
> protobuf generation.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Alexander Rukletsov
> 
>

Reply via email to