-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/65574/#review197196
-----------------------------------------------------------



LGTM, but I'd like this part of the chain to be committed alongside a test 
which checks for fetcher output, along the same lines as these tests:

* `TEST_F(ContainerLoggerTest, DefaultToSandbox)` in 
`tests/container_logger_tests.cpp`
* `TEST_F(DockerContainerizerTest, ROOT_DOCKER_Logs)` in 
`tests/containerizer/docker_containerizer_tests.cpp`

- Joseph Wu


On Feb. 8, 2018, 11:55 a.m., Andrew Schwartzmeyer wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/65574/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Feb. 8, 2018, 11:55 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Akash Gupta, Jie Yu, and Joseph Wu.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-6838 and MESOS-8512
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-6838
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-8512
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> The primary change in this patch is that `create_process` now enables
> inheritance for the `pipe` handles passed before starting the child
> process. This is required, otherwise the child process will behave
> incorrectly (for example, it will write to `stdout` but that will go
> nowhere, as the redirection silently failed). After the process is
> created, inheritance is disabled to prevent further calls to
> `create_process` from inheriting the wrong handles.
> 
> The `std::tuple<os::WindowsFD, ...>` type was changed to a
> `std::array<os::WindowsFD, 3>` as it is significantly easier to work
> with (it supports iteration).
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os/windows/shell.hpp 
> 542039c31f94eda1af121335b12edf9b83725ae5 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/65574/diff/1/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Andrew Schwartzmeyer
> 
>

Reply via email to