-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/43629/#review123863
-----------------------------------------------------------


Ship it!





src/tests/fetcher_cache_tests.cpp (lines 165 - 167)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/43629/#comment186153>

    Could you explain this NOTE? It looks like we do `fetcherProcess = new 
MockFetcherProcess();` but we wrap it in an `Owned` and pass it to `fetcher`?



src/tests/fetcher_cache_tests.cpp (line 198)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/43629/#comment186154>

    Just a note for going forward: Let's try to get the `Owned` transfer logic 
correct. Yes, we can catch them when we fix `Owned`, but it would be good to 
reduce the amount of work that'll involve. This one for example should be 
`master = std::move(_master.get());`.


- Michael Park


On March 15, 2016, 8:48 p.m., Joseph Wu wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/43629/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated March 15, 2016, 8:48 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Bernd Mathiske and Artem Harutyunyan.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-4633 and MESOS-4634
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-4633
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-4634
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Continuation of https://reviews.apache.org/r/43615/ with a slightly different 
> pattern.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/tests/dynamic_weights_tests.cpp 
> a95663f633f376954d4201b6cfbe693429be9c39 
>   src/tests/fetcher_cache_tests.cpp 776c95267caff7b27cd70c2fa6149d8158c86750 
>   src/tests/resource_offers_tests.cpp 
> 0bad45dd1dabecc88fef1ab46e8ea26718070b33 
>   src/tests/slave_recovery_tests.cpp bd7b94f3f1fac6705e5bf14c6f6103b540cde56c 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/43629/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Tests are run at the end of this review chain.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Joseph Wu
> 
>

Reply via email to