----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/38844/#review101073 -----------------------------------------------------------
LGTM ! Just some minor comments to clean up the tests around parameterizing/scoping. src/tests/executor_http_api_tests.cpp (line 450) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/38844/#comment158380> s/TEST_F/TEST_P Is there a reason why this test is not parameterized ? src/tests/executor_http_api_tests.cpp (line 468) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/38844/#comment158381> src/tests/executor_http_api_tests.cpp (lines 468 - 483) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/38844/#comment158393> s/responseSubscribe/response Can we use scoping here for each of the 3 different scenarios : { Call call; blah blah; } { Call call; blah blah; } ... src/tests/executor_http_api_tests.cpp (line 515) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/38844/#comment158385> s/TEST_F/TEST_P and make this test parametrized. Is there a reason why this is not ? s/InvalidCallUpdate/StatusUpdateCallFailedValidation to be more descriptive src/tests/executor_http_api_tests.cpp (line 531) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/38844/#comment158389> // We send a valid Call::Update message with inconsistent executor_id between Call::executor_id and Call::Update::TaskInfo::executor_id. This should result in failed validation. ^^ How does this sound to you ? src/tests/executor_http_api_tests.cpp (line 561) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/38844/#comment158390> Nit: // We send a valid Call::Update message with a TASK_STAGING status update. This should fail validation. (Mainly because after parameterizing the test this won't always be a protobuf message.) src/tests/executor_http_api_tests.cpp (lines 563 - 573) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/38844/#comment158391> Scope this similar to my earlier comment: { blah blah; } - Anand Mazumdar On Sept. 29, 2015, 9:27 p.m., Isabel Jimenez wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/38844/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Sept. 29, 2015, 9:27 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Anand Mazumdar and Vinod Kone. > > > Bugs: MESOS-2906 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2906 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Unit tests for Call validation in Agent. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/tests/executor_http_api_tests.cpp c2c05f4 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/38844/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > Isabel Jimenez > >
