> On March 22, 2017, 4:37 p.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote: > > src/checks/health_checker.cpp > > Lines 380-381 (patched) > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/57646/diff/2/?file=1670858#file1670858line380> > > > > Please `<<` and escape task id.
Fixed in https://reviews.apache.org/r/57854/ > On March 22, 2017, 4:37 p.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote: > > src/checks/health_checker.cpp > > Lines 503-509 (patched) > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/57646/diff/2/?file=1670858#file1670858line504> > > > > I'm not sure we should keep it. Wihtout knowing all the offline > > discussions we had, this comment can be misleading, e.g., which future > > exactly do you mean or why would we say `associate` if some failures should > > be mapped to discards. > > > > My understanding is that you use an extra promise here becase there are > > two different events, which does not always conincide with their states, > > i.e., _some_ connection failures should map to health result discards. > > > > I'd rather say what the promise you introduce represents, e.g., > > "Represents the result of a health check". Updated the comment. > On March 22, 2017, 4:37 p.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote: > > src/checks/health_checker.cpp > > Lines 513 (patched) > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/57646/diff/2/?file=1670858#file1670858line514> > > > > Do you really need to capture `this`? We need it because we use `taskId`, we could cache it.... should we? If so, why is that prefered? > On March 22, 2017, 4:37 p.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote: > > src/checks/health_checker.cpp > > Lines 514-515 (patched) > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/57646/diff/2/?file=1670858#file1670858line515> > > > > Please carry space onto the next line. Fixed in https://reviews.apache.org/r/57854/ > On March 22, 2017, 4:37 p.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote: > > src/checks/health_checker.cpp > > Lines 586-587 (patched) > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/57646/diff/2/?file=1670858#file1670858line587> > > > > Please carry space onto the next line; escape task id Fixed in https://reviews.apache.org/r/57854/ > On March 22, 2017, 4:37 p.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote: > > src/checks/health_checker.cpp > > Lines 681-684 (patched) > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/57646/diff/2/?file=1670858#file1670858line693> > > > > This comment includes non-local information which tends to become > > stale. Instead, how about we simply return `Failure(failure)` here and > > remove the comment? If you do this, then the return will trigger the `onFailure` callback that discards the `Promise`. =/ - Gastón ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/57646/#review169714 ----------------------------------------------------------- On March 22, 2017, 6:19 p.m., Gastón Kleiman wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/57646/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated March 22, 2017, 6:19 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 > ------- > > Made COMMAND health checks resilient to agent failovers. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/checks/health_checker.hpp 44df544b585b8c9f1138fc69b34b064bae8cc867 > src/checks/health_checker.cpp a26e9b570ea3a0ee775d220a3b523ae7052dad23 > > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/57646/diff/3/ > > > Testing > ------- > > `make check` in Linux > > > Thanks, > > Gastón Kleiman > >
