> On Feb. 7, 2018, 6:19 p.m., Benjamin Mahler wrote:
> > src/tests/mock_slave.cpp
> > Lines 107-108 (original), 107-109 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/65497/diff/2/?file=1953432#file1953432line107>
> >
> >     What's going on here?
> 
> Meng Zhu wrote:
>     For the agent failover test, I need the failed agent to start with the 
> same pid. There is a parameter `id` you can pass to the Slave constructor 
> above. But it turns out the original code ignore that argument and just call 
> `process::ID::generate("slave")` every time, changed it to take the argument.
> 
> Benjamin Mahler wrote:
>     I see, so this was a bug? Can you fix this in a separate patch?
>     
>     I also didn't follow why you needed to add the `ProcessBase` constructor 
> call, since that's done within the slave constructor already? What does it 
> mean for it to happen twice?

OK, separate patch for `id` initialization in #65613.


> On Feb. 7, 2018, 6:19 p.m., Benjamin Mahler wrote:
> > src/tests/slave_tests.cpp
> > Lines 4926-4927 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/65497/diff/2/?file=1953433#file1953433line4926>
> >
> >     even after the exeutor has been registered..? I think you want to 
> > remove that?
> 
> Meng Zhu wrote:
>     Why? The agent failover happens after the executor has been registered. 
> Then the executor re-registers and got killed.
> 
> Benjamin Mahler wrote:
>     Oh I read it as the executor being registered after failover rather than 
> before, how about:
>     
>     ```
>     // This test verifies that if an agent fails over after registering
>     // a v1 executor but before delivering its initial task groups, the
>     // executor will be shut down since all of its initial task groups
>     // were dropped. See MESOS-8411.
>     ```
>     
>     This also avoids the hanging sentence at the end that mentions task group 
> by stating it within the description.

Sounds good. Thank you!


> On Feb. 7, 2018, 6:19 p.m., Benjamin Mahler wrote:
> > src/tests/slave_tests.cpp
> > Lines 4945 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/65497/diff/2/?file=1953433#file1953433line4945>
> >
> >     "NotSlave"?
> >     
> >     We should probably have found a way to use the logic from 
> > Master::newSlaveId here.
> 
> Meng Zhu wrote:
>     Changed it to "slave". That we will need to change cluster::master, I do 
> not think it is important here. Let's just use "slave".
> 
> Benjamin Mahler wrote:
>     Oh, I mistook this for the SlaveID rather than the PID::id. I'm not sure 
> I followed your response, but re-using the master code isn't applicable here 
> anyway.
>     
>     To avoid this confusion for other readers, can you do the following?
>     
>     ```
>     string processId = process::ID::generate("slave");
>     
>     StartSlave(..., processId, ...);
>     ```

Sounds good.


- Meng


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/65497/#review197070
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Feb. 12, 2018, 11:48 a.m., Meng Zhu wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/65497/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Feb. 12, 2018, 11:48 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos and Benjamin Mahler.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-8411
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-8411
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> This test verifies that the v1 executor is shutdown if all of its
> initial tasks could not be delivered when re-subscribing with
> a recovered agent. See MESOS-8411.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/tests/mesos.hpp c5593c25dde18c005f195a1885a8586bc72c849f 
>   src/tests/mesos.cpp ac789297d6aa034121b73e4efc0aafee1ee3b60f 
>   src/tests/slave_tests.cpp 628b0d0fc862264c9553e1660c7df548df9cd4a1 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/65497/diff/4/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Meng Zhu
> 
>

Reply via email to