> On Aug. 17, 2017, 2:22 p.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote:
> > src/checks/checker_process.cpp
> > Lines 630-631 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/61697/diff/2/?file=1798839#file1798839line630>
> >
> >     I assume line feed and carriage return characters are included in the 
> > output. In this case, how a reader can distinguish between executor output 
> > and check output? Is it because check output lines will not be prepended by 
> > a timestamp? Have you tested it and checked that the output is sane?

Exaclty, the check output lines will not be prepended with anything, here's an 
example output with the health check command `ls >&2 && echo 'foo bar baz' && 
true`:

```
I0818 16:24:04.182832 36687 checker_process.cpp:639] Output of the COMMAND 
health check for task 'test-task-id' (stdout):
foo bar baz
I0818 16:24:04.182896 36687 checker_process.cpp:643] Output of the COMMAND 
health check for task 'test-task-id' (stderr):
containers
stderr
stdout
```


- Gastón


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/61697/#review183121
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Aug. 18, 2017, 11:20 p.m., Gastón Kleiman wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/61697/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Aug. 18, 2017, 11:20 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Alexander Rukletsov, Greg Mann, and Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-7861
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-7861
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> This patch makes the default executor include the output of the COMMAND
> (health) checks in its logs.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/checks/checker_process.cpp 30dda0e6efca31aa6b9cd4f753f96b979717ab2e 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/61697/diff/3/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Manual tests.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Gastón Kleiman
> 
>

Reply via email to