----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/67670/#review205061 -----------------------------------------------------------
src/tests/storage_local_resource_provider_tests.cpp Lines 1047 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/67670/#comment288023> If this number depends on e.g., the allocation interval or the number of allocation cycles we perform below, it might be worthwhile to document that. I am not sure if there's any dependency. src/tests/storage_local_resource_provider_tests.cpp Lines 1058 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/67670/#comment288012> Let's pass this to `StartMaster`. src/tests/storage_local_resource_provider_tests.cpp Lines 1066 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/67670/#comment288011> Why is this required? It looks like this is the only driver for making this a `ROOT` test. If it is required we should document why; else let's make this a non-`ROOT` test. nit: We can remove the empty line below. src/tests/storage_local_resource_provider_tests.cpp Lines 1165-1168 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/67670/#comment288016> This relies strongly on the way the master interprets a zero time, and how the allocation interval is related to the default value the master would currently use. Can we set a value calculated from `masterFlags.allocation_interval` instead to decouple this? src/tests/storage_local_resource_provider_tests.cpp Lines 1180 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/67670/#comment288017> Let's `ASSERT` here that we were offered the 4GB `disk` we expect. src/tests/storage_local_resource_provider_tests.cpp Lines 1204-1205 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/67670/#comment288019> The point here seems to be to simulate a situation where an agent update and an operation cross each other's paths between master and agent (and them being incompatible). Also: `s/hold/held/` src/tests/storage_local_resource_provider_tests.cpp Lines 1284 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/67670/#comment288022> `storagePool.disk().get()`? - Benjamin Bannier On June 20, 2018, 7:34 a.m., Chun-Hung Hsiao wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/67670/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated June 20, 2018, 7:34 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Benjamin Bannier, Jie Yu, and Jan Schlicht. > > > Bugs: MESOS-8995 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-8995 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > The `ROOT_ProfileDisappeared` tests if a `CREATE_VOLUME` consuming a RAW > disk with a disappeared profile will be dropped, and if the disk space > freed by a `DESTROY_VOLUME` destroying a volume with a disappeared > profile will be recovered with a newly appeared profile. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/tests/storage_local_resource_provider_tests.cpp > 1afe8a8e0413ef225e952cd9cd6376e5d82774e5 > > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/67670/diff/1/ > > > Testing > ------- > > sudo make check > > > Thanks, > > Chun-Hung Hsiao > >
