-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/52180/#review150256
-----------------------------------------------------------


Ship it!




Seems like the wrong ticket to link to, mind creating a new one for the lack of 
ExitedEvent during socket creation error?


3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/process_tests.cpp (lines 959 - 969)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/52180/#comment218148>

    Can this be moved down?



3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/process_tests.cpp (line 972)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/52180/#comment218147>

    underscores?


- Benjamin Mahler


On Sept. 23, 2016, 9:49 p.m., Joseph Wu wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/52180/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Sept. 23, 2016, 9:49 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Mahler, Artem Harutyunyan, and Joris Van 
> Remoortere.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-6234
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-6234
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> When we try to link to a remote process, we will send the linkee an
> `ExitedEvent` when the link is broken or if the connection fails.
> This patch adds an `ExitedEvent` when the socket creation step fails.
> This is logically equivalent to having the connection step fail.
> 
> Because this is an entirely unexpected case, the log level should be
> a WARNING or higher.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/src/process.cpp 
> 02a192529e53479d5a163fa6a20873674b51ee2c 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/process_tests.cpp 
> b9feec7e34cffe19e49035f8865b150f79258f54 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/52180/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 3rdparty/libprocess/libprocess-tests 
> --gtest_filter="ProcessRemoteLinkTest.RemoteLinkLeak" --gtest_repeat=5000 
> --gtest_break_on_failure
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Joseph Wu
> 
>

Reply via email to