> On April 9, 2018, 5:08 p.m., Greg Mann wrote:
> > src/tests/operation_reconciliation_tests.cpp
> > Lines 364-365 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/66468/diff/1/?file=1994432#file1994432line364>
> >
> >     Is there a reason not to do this with a `for` loop?
> 
> Gaston Kleiman wrote:
>     I copied & pasted this from 
> https://github.com/apache/mesos/blob/be47e96e727f07758ff9b8ba1c23bbec2a489cd6/src/tests/reconciliation_tests.cpp#L1221-L1230,
>  so consistency with that file would be the only reason =).
>     
>     Doing this with a `for` loop calls `FUTURE_MESSAGE` and `Clock::advance` 
> one extra time, but that doesn't really hurt, so I converted the `while` loop 
> into a `for` loop. Let me know if you like it this way or if you'd prefer me 
> to revert this change.

I changed it back to a `while` loop as discussed in chat.


- Gaston


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/66468/#review200769
-----------------------------------------------------------


On April 10, 2018, 11:45 a.m., Gaston Kleiman wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/66468/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated April 10, 2018, 11:45 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos and Greg Mann.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Added tests for operation status reconciliation.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/Makefile.am 9f4b6d369a23af337e2384e52e3e41f4017df38a 
>   src/tests/CMakeLists.txt ade5180f6e072112ad4836aa436e8545260d2ae6 
>   src/tests/operation_reconciliation_tests.cpp PRE-CREATION 
>   src/tests/storage_local_resource_provider_tests.cpp 
> 2872f1aec1a7b94fc302a533f5ae9e1be9658087 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/66468/diff/3/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> The new tests passed 1000 iterations on GNU/Linux.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Gaston Kleiman
> 
>

Reply via email to