> On Jan. 22, 2016, 8:29 a.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
> > src/tests/hierarchical_allocator_tests.cpp, lines 509-515
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/42629/diff/1/?file=1205229#file1205229line509>
> >
> >     Looks like you only need the second advance here? Technically, you are 
> > triggering two batch allocations here, which doesn't appear to be the 
> > intent?
> >     
> >     It would mean we need a Clock::settle after calling recoverResources.

I was thinking about the following: if we remove the first advance, can there 
be a race when `expire()` is processed *after* the second allocation cycle? I 
think it can if we do not ensure the filter is set *before* the first batch 
allocation (your addition).

Re: triggering two batch allocations here, it doesn't matter because we are 
interested only in the next allocation, but I agree it may distract the reader.

Marking as "fixed".


> On Jan. 22, 2016, 8:29 a.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
> > src/tests/hierarchical_allocator_tests.cpp, line 525
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/42629/diff/1/?file=1205229#file1205229line525>
> >
> >     Some unicode character here?

:facepalm:


> On Jan. 22, 2016, 8:29 a.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
> > src/tests/hierarchical_allocator_tests.cpp, line 1415
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/42629/diff/1/?file=1205229#file1205229line1415>
> >
> >     What is a Quarantee? ;)

double :facepalm: ...


> On Jan. 22, 2016, 8:29 a.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
> > src/tests/hierarchical_allocator_tests.cpp, lines 1513-1522
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/42629/diff/1/?file=1205229#file1205229line1513>
> >
> >     This change actually belongs in the previous patch, since your last 
> > change breaks this test on its own.

Correct, thanks Ben!


> On Jan. 22, 2016, 8:29 a.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
> > src/tests/hierarchical_allocator_tests.cpp, lines 1497-1502
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/42629/diff/1/?file=1205229#file1205229line1497>
> >
> >     Let's leave this for now, but it would be great to avoid this 
> > assumption and explicitly control the allocation interval duration, no? 
> > When you are advancing the clock below twice, you are triggering two batch 
> > allocations, when your intention appears to be to trigger only one batch 
> > allocation.
> >     
> >     For now I'll fix this same issue in the OfferFilter test, and I'll 
> > leave this one as still triggering two allocations since it's an existing 
> > test.

Yeah, may be a bit misleading for the reader. I'll note it down and propose a 
patch some time in the future.


- Alexander


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/42629/#review115801
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Jan. 22, 2016, 1:24 a.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/42629/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Jan. 22, 2016, 1:24 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos and Ben Mahler.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-4302
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-4302
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> See summary.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/tests/hierarchical_allocator_tests.cpp 
> 953712149bd951789beb29c72779c4ac65aa48dc 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/42629/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> On Mac OS 10.10.4:
> 
> `make check`
> 
> `GTEST_FILTER="HierarchicalAllocatorTest.FilterTimeout" ./bin/mesos-tests.sh 
> --gtest_repeat=100 --gtest_break_on_failure` passes with the patch and fails 
> without.
> 
> `GTEST_FILTER="HierarchicalAllocatorTest.*" ./bin/mesos-tests.sh 
> --gtest_repeat=100 --gtest_break_on_failure`
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Alexander Rukletsov
> 
>

Reply via email to