> On June 27, 2016, 6:27 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
> > src/webui/master/static/js/controllers.js, line 149
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/49228/diff/4/?file=1431212#file1431212line149>
> >
> >     task.statuses[0] could be a terminal state if a task went directly from 
> > TASK_STAGING to TASK_LOST, i.e., a task was removed before any update for 
> > it was received by the master (e.g., agent removed).
> 
> Tomasz Janiszewski wrote:
>     What is desired behaviour for this situation? Now start and stop time 
> will be equal. Should start time be `null` when first status is terminal?
> 
> Vinod Kone wrote:
>     looks like start time is capturing when the master receives a 
> TASK_RUNNING update and not when the task launch request from the scheduler 
> was received by the master. so i would prefer to not set `task.start_time` if 
> the master didn't receive that update.

I added condition that will not set `task.start_time` when first status state 
is terminal.


- Tomasz


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/49228/#review139622
-----------------------------------------------------------


On June 27, 2016, 9:05 p.m., Tomasz Janiszewski wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/49228/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated June 27, 2016, 9:05 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Mahler, haosdent huang, Ross Allen, and 
> Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Only set the terminal time if the last state is terminal.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/webui/master/static/js/controllers.js 
> be3fa1f1fba9eda7ebcc9bf33142fe4307dd8d90 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/49228/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Generate orpahne tasks that is alive. It should have not set stopped time.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Tomasz Janiszewski
> 
>

Reply via email to