-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/66313/#review200068
-----------------------------------------------------------



Patch looks great!

Reviews applied: [66313]

Passed command: export OS='ubuntu:14.04' BUILDTOOL='autotools' COMPILER='gcc' 
CONFIGURATION='--verbose --disable-libtool-wrappers' ENVIRONMENT='GLOG_v=1 
MESOS_VERBOSE=1'; ./support/docker-build.sh

- Mesos Reviewbot


On March 27, 2018, 11:32 a.m., Benjamin Bannier wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/66313/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated March 27, 2018, 11:32 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Alexander Rukletsov and Till Toenshoff.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-8733
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-8733
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> In the `OversubscriptionTest.ForwardUpdateSlaveMessage` test we
> observe a single `UpdateSlaveMessage` to make sure the agent has fully
> recovered. This message is sent from the resource provider-capable
> agent to communicate its (empty) set of resource providers after
> registration.
> 
> Since message was sent with a running clock, it is possible that the
> agent encounters a timeout of its registration backoff timers. The
> agent would then register agent, triggering another similar message
> which is not expected in the test.
> 
> This patch adjusts the test to always run with paused clock
> eliminating this particular scenario.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/tests/oversubscription_tests.cpp 
> 47c51e3d035eb5143d00efb466675eb02236b52e 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/66313/diff/1/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> `make check`
> 
> Before this patch this test would fail after a handful of iterations; with 
> this patch I was able to execute this test >110,000 times without issues.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Benjamin Bannier
> 
>

Reply via email to