----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/63063/#review188261 -----------------------------------------------------------
FAIL: Failed to apply the dependent review: 61805. Failed command: `python.exe .\support\apply-reviews.py -n -r 61805` All the build artifacts available at: http://dcos-win.westus.cloudapp.azure.com/mesos-build/review/63063 Relevant logs: - [apply-review-61805-stdout.log](http://dcos-win.westus.cloudapp.azure.com/mesos-build/review/63063/logs/apply-review-61805-stdout.log): ``` error: patch failed: src/slave/paths.cpp:69 error: src/slave/paths.cpp: patch does not apply ``` - Mesos Reviewbot Windows On Oct. 17, 2017, 1:43 a.m., Joseph Wu wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/63063/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Oct. 17, 2017, 1:43 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Gilbert Song and Jie Yu. > > > Bugs: MESOS-7305 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-7305 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > There is some existing tech debt around requiring the caller of > `Containerizer::launch` to call `Containerizer::destroy` if the launch > fails (see MESOS-6214). For nested and standalone containers, the > side effect of this results in accidentally destroying running > containers if you make the same call an even number of times. > > For example, suppose the user launches a valid nested container > with an ID of 'parent.child'. If the user issues the same call to > launch 'parent.child' again, this second call will fail *and* will > also destroy the first container. > > This commit prevents repeated launch calls from destroying containers > by changing the return value of `Containerizer::launch`. There are > now four possible return values: > * The launch succeeded. > * The standalone/nested container already exists. > * The given ContainerConfig is not supported. > * The launch failed. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/slave/containerizer/composing.hpp > 06d68eef5de7745e32f0e808f11016bcc285dd8f > src/slave/containerizer/composing.cpp > 587f009384f0c7ef87482686578dc822d3d5b208 > src/slave/containerizer/containerizer.hpp > 449bb5d0902936faae7bf9bae9c703b219aed842 > src/slave/containerizer/docker.hpp b602a5698cae12686f51c4b9370a06042cda6270 > src/slave/containerizer/docker.cpp 292eecbca246edf068ec8c262aff4f3ce9cd8c67 > src/slave/containerizer/mesos/containerizer.hpp > 6d356ccf82f36df8c6f558fb0ace7d9f982a3d6b > src/slave/containerizer/mesos/containerizer.cpp > 78fdd21f8b7ede4beedff31ba2b488ffebd4ea31 > src/slave/http.cpp f2e06aff95e0628624b6ed25de222fd3f3577a0b > src/slave/slave.hpp aea1e948209c7c8945665915bc2f6d8eb47814ef > src/slave/slave.cpp 4d7dc8e9a3901b00103031e24e5d6328d0f2e2ad > src/tests/agent_container_api_tests.cpp PRE-CREATION > > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/63063/diff/1/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Doesn't build yet, but I'd like to see if the interface change makes sense as > it stands. > > > Thanks, > > Joseph Wu > >
