> On March 16, 2017, 1 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote: > > src/checks/health_checker.cpp > > Lines 818-819 (patched) > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/57647/diff/1/?file=1665461#file1665461line821> > > > > hmm. instead of storing the previous container in a member variable and > > calling `removePreviousCheckContainer` why not do this as part of `.onAny` > > callback on the `nestedCommandCheck()` future? the removal of the previous > > container need not block the launch of the next container right?
I did it this way to be able to leverage the existing retry logic. Also we'd be leaking nested containers if we continue health checking while the `RemoveNestedContainer` calls fail. - Gastón ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/57647/#review169135 ----------------------------------------------------------- On March 21, 2017, 2:10 p.m., Gastón Kleiman wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/57647/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated March 21, 2017, 2:10 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Alexander Rukletsov, Anand Mazumdar, haosdent > huang, and Vinod Kone. > > > Bugs: MESOS-6280 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-6280 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > See summary. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/checks/health_checker.hpp 44df544b585b8c9f1138fc69b34b064bae8cc867 > src/checks/health_checker.cpp a26e9b570ea3a0ee775d220a3b523ae7052dad23 > > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/57647/diff/2/ > > > Testing > ------- > > `make check` in Linux > > > Thanks, > > Gastón Kleiman > >
