> On Nov. 16, 2017, 11:45 a.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote: > > src/tests/default_executor_tests.cpp > > Lines 926-928 (original), 1027-1029 (patched) > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/63577/diff/3/?file=1892762#file1892762line1167> > > > > What happens if a scheduler gets `TASK_FAILED` status update before > > destruction? Will the test fail with an "uninteresting mock function call"? > > Or there will be no failure because the expectation are specific to the > > state and we just get a warning in the log? I believe the latter, but could > > you please check this? > > Qian Zhang wrote: > Can you please elaborate a bit about why the scheduler will get > `TASK_FAILED` status update?
We do not explicitly wait for those tasks to finish. Container can be destroyed and `TASK_FAILED` can be sent to the scheduler shall it still exist. However, I think we will simply get a warning, just wanted to make sure my understanding is correct. - Alexander ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/63577/#review191169 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Nov. 20, 2017, 2:46 a.m., Qian Zhang wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/63577/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Nov. 20, 2017, 2:46 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Alexander Rukletsov and Gaston Kleiman. > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Previously in the test `DefaultExecutorTest.KillMultipleTasks` and > `DefaultExecutorTest.KillTaskGroupOnTaskFailure`, when launching a > task group which has multiple tasks, we expected the scheduler will > receive all the TASK_STARTING status updates before receiving any > TASK_RUNNING status updates. However this is not guaranteed, e.g., > it is possible for the scheduler to receive TASK_RUNNING for the > first task before receiving TASK_STARTING for the second task. > > So in this patch, we used `Sequence` to guarantee the order of > TASK_STARTING and TASK_RUNNING for each task but do not care about > the order between tasks. > > The following 3 tests have their own solutions to handle this issue, > in this patch, I updated them to use the above solution. > `DefaultExecutorTest.KillTask` > `DefaultExecutorTest.CommitSuicideOnKillTask` > `DefaultExecutorTest.ROOT_ContainerStatusForTask` > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/tests/default_executor_tests.cpp > 65150212ae36094325c4f7f12b6ef135cd953170 > src/tests/mesos.hpp 345b883a8c629bf5bed83e9236632c277f2eb0eb > > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/63577/diff/4/ > > > Testing > ------- > > This patch touched 5 tests: > 1. KillTask > 2. KillMultipleTasks > 3. KillTaskGroupOnTaskFailure > 4. CommitSuicideOnKillTask > 5. ROOT_ContainerStatusForTask > > I ran each of them repeatedly (20 times), and all of them succeeded. > > > Thanks, > > Qian Zhang > >
