> On Feb. 13, 2018, 9:15 p.m., Andrei Budnik wrote:
> > src/master/master.cpp
> > Lines 2182-2185 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/65571/diff/3/?file=1959189#file1959189line2184>
> >
> >     Why do we need this case? What problem does it solve?

It mainly ensures that the proposed fix changes only the problematic behaviour 
that was observed, and otherwise leaves the visible behaviour of the master the 
same as before.

If it turns out that this case is indeed unnecessary, I think it should be 
removed in a separate review.


- Benno


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/65571/#review197434
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Feb. 13, 2018, 8:05 p.m., Benno Evers wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/65571/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Feb. 13, 2018, 8:05 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Andrei Budnik and Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-8550
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-8550
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> The function `MasterDetector::detect()` returns a value of type
> `Future<Option<MasterInfo>>`, which, according to its documentation,
> can be `None` if an election occured and no master is elected.
> 
> However, the code in `Master::detected()` was only handling the
> cases of a failed future or a valid `MasterInfo` object.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/master/master.cpp d7d22866f7a4eb87bd8949efafc97e828e7d4b94 
>   src/tests/cluster.hpp ad2b80e658d2f8afcefe9969d62cd33f0c475ce9 
>   src/tests/master_tests.cpp 28663c7a77096943949350abb3d13f9c04505f5b 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/65571/diff/3/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> `./mesos-tests`
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Benno Evers
> 
>

Reply via email to