> On Feb. 16, 2016, 2:09 p.m., Joris Van Remoortere wrote:
> > src/tests/group_tests.cpp, line 492
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/43035/diff/3/?file=1228698#file1228698line492>
> >
> >     Do you mean `Ensure that no pending messages are delivered.`?
> >     Or `if any`, then what?

i.e., we want to check that if there are any pending messages, those messages 
are delivered. I clarified the comment to this effect.


> On Feb. 16, 2016, 2:09 p.m., Joris Van Remoortere wrote:
> > src/tests/group_tests.cpp, lines 450-456
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/43035/diff/3/?file=1228698#file1228698line450>
> >
> >     Can you explain why you needed to move this?

Can't recall :) I reverted this change.


- Neil


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/43035/#review119309
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Feb. 16, 2016, 5:59 p.m., Neil Conway wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/43035/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Feb. 16, 2016, 5:59 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos and Joris Van Remoortere.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Check that even though we might fire a timer for a `GroupProcess` that has 
> been
> destroyed, this does not result in dispatching an event to a reclaimed 
> process.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/tests/group_tests.cpp af530f32fac47801a2cd0d941f3aa9196d448bd2 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/43035/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> `make check; ./src/mesos-tests --gtest_filter="GroupTest.TimerCleanup" 
> --gtest_repeat=4000 --gtest_break_on_failure`
> 
> I also verified that if you remove the `delete` of the `GroupProcess`, the 
> test fails because the `expired` callback is invoked (the `Clock::settle()` 
> is necessary to ensure that this happens).
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Neil Conway
> 
>

Reply via email to