> On May 7, 2018, 9:41 a.m., Greg Mann wrote:
> > src/tests/master_slave_reconciliation_tests.cpp
> > Lines 496 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/66924/diff/2/?file=2017096#file2017096line496>
> >
> >     Nit: indented too far.

I ended up removing this callback, as it makes the test flaky and isn't really 
useful.


> On May 7, 2018, 9:41 a.m., Greg Mann wrote:
> > src/tests/mesos.hpp
> > Lines 469 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/66924/diff/2/?file=2017097#file2017097line469>
> >
> >     Is this necessary?

Yes, it is necessary in order to use `v1::UUID` in the test instead of 
`mesos::v1::UUID`.


- Gaston


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/66924/#review202555
-----------------------------------------------------------


On May 7, 2018, 11:54 a.m., Gaston Kleiman wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/66924/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated May 7, 2018, 11:54 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Bannier, Chun-Hung Hsiao, and Greg Mann.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-8784
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-8784
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Made the master include the operation ID in OPERATION_DROPPED updates.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/master/master.hpp 76e7763a99972f686af9d7eed08b6b6b1db23b0f 
>   src/master/master.cpp 3b5d2eba3f602f68a6bb1e00444b01fb58a1bfc2 
>   src/tests/master_slave_reconciliation_tests.cpp 
> 71e22af7ac3b7bc4c72340274961db16d7355e7d 
>   src/tests/mesos.hpp 8da3b021874097c5b66e5bc7d9fdafcc8fc377ef 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/66924/diff/3/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> `make check` on GNU/Linux.
> 
> 
> The test in this patch fails without the corresponding master change, but 
> succeeds with it applied.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Gaston Kleiman
> 
>

Reply via email to