-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/66931/#review202348
-----------------------------------------------------------


Ship it!





src/tests/resource_provider_manager_tests.cpp
Lines 1130-1131 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/66931/#comment284116>

    Nit: `disconnected` is called asynchronously. The `Clock::settle()` below 
will make sure that it is called. Not having the settle would introduce another 
flakyness though. To be extra sure, we could set a future and await that one 
before we reset `resourceProvider` with a new instance.


- Jan Schlicht


On May 3, 2018, 1:46 p.m., Benjamin Bannier wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/66931/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated May 3, 2018, 1:46 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Chun-Hung Hsiao and Jan Schlicht.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-8874
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-8874
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> We previously did not make ensure that after the simulated agent
> failover in
> `ResourceProviderManagerHttpApiTest.ResubscribeResourceProvider` the
> mock resource provider created as part of the test did not reconnect
> to the restarted agent (as opposed to the newly initialized resource
> provider). This lead to unmet test expectations.
> 
> With this patch we now explicitly tear down the mock resource provider
> after we have detected that the agent went away to prevent the race.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/tests/resource_provider_manager_tests.cpp 
> e8ca377fd0a927b99fdaf6a8ee0139025a41298e 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/66931/diff/1/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> `make check`
> 
> Ran the test repeatedly under high system load without triggering the issue 
> again with this patch.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Benjamin Bannier
> 
>

Reply via email to