-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/61147/#review181762
-----------------------------------------------------------


Fix it, then Ship it!





3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/future.hpp
Lines 84-88 (original), 84-88 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/61147/#comment257451>

    This could use some discussion about abandonement, there doesn't seem to be 
any that talks about what abandonment is? (I guess you'll have to seed this 
since the current documentation is lacking). In particular, what I found 
helpful was to think about it as: a pending future can be abandoned (rather 
than abandoment being a terminal state). Maybe also a TODO about what we would 
do if we were designing future from scratch? Would we make abandonment a state 
that is captured by onAny?



3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/future.hpp
Line 1059 (original), 1108-1109 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/61147/#comment257452>

    A high level comment about what propagating means here would be great! 
(maybe an example to make it even more clear?)



3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/queue.hpp
Lines 57-69 (original), 57-66 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/61147/#comment257453>

    Commit this separately? I think it was written the original way to avoid 
needing an UNREACHABLE?



3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/queue.hpp
Line 59 (original), 57 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/61147/#comment257455>

    It's funny, now that dispatching is lock free, I suspect that the 
Process-based implementation of Pipe would be faster than the locking approach! 
This is potentially true across other components, like process::Queue!



3rdparty/libprocess/src/http.cpp
Lines 422-441 (original), 422-438 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/61147/#comment257454>

    Ditto here w.r.t. committing separately. I also thought this was written 
the original way to avoid UNREACHABLE.



3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/collect_tests.cpp
Lines 114-127 (original), 114-131 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/61147/#comment257456>

    What happened here?



3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/collect_tests.cpp
Lines 229-243 (original), 233-250 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/61147/#comment257457>

    Ditto here.



3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/future_tests.cpp
Lines 558 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/61147/#comment257458>

    EXPECT not abandoned before you reset the promise?



3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/metrics_tests.cpp
Lines 77-80 (original), 78-85 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/61147/#comment257459>

    Just curious, does it matter that the pending future is abandoned?



3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/process_tests.cpp
Line 176 (original), 177 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/61147/#comment257460>

    Commit separately?



3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/process_tests.cpp
Line 216 (original), 215 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/61147/#comment257461>

    Commit this and the using statement separately?



3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/shared_tests.cpp
Line 93 (original), 94 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/61147/#comment257462>

    Commit this and the using statement separately?


- Benjamin Mahler


On July 27, 2017, 1:55 a.m., Benjamin Hindman wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/61147/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated July 27, 2017, 1:55 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos and Benjamin Mahler.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Added Future::onAbandoned and Future::isAbandoned.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/future.hpp 
> cce950509f58022e79bb51a6e72ea1a005b9cb50 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/queue.hpp 
> ab08e30df742412f22a06202526f8b55350ed435 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/src/http.cpp a4d71fb6c345d3c7a7611004830f6c2c0fbf6046 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/collect_tests.cpp 
> 155e0bb75cf723a0a6c29020f9f767e3ba3d7401 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/future_tests.cpp 
> 0c8725b9a5e64aaac6e3979e450a11e84f9bd45e 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/metrics_tests.cpp 
> 161ca0dc7aea526d450d71a80839d8cc075aaa31 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/process_tests.cpp 
> ed11909a2a5e3214fa974bdea098f4057cea9666 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/shared_tests.cpp 
> 2a2ffe76b7b7ce016b559de7b5d3a28a06f422ef 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/61147/diff/1/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Benjamin Hindman
> 
>

Reply via email to