> On Aug. 6, 2018, 10:35 p.m., Chun-Hung Hsiao wrote: > > src/tests/containerizer/cni_isolator_tests.cpp > > Lines 1799 (patched) > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/68239/diff/2/?file=2069278#file2069278line1799> > > > > What's the reason of doing a pre-test cleanup first? To prevent > > residual rules from the previous run?
Yeah, that's the typical pattern we used in the test. > On Aug. 6, 2018, 10:35 p.m., Chun-Hung Hsiao wrote: > > src/tests/containerizer/cni_isolator_tests.cpp > > Lines 1929-1932 (patched) > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/68239/diff/2/?file=2069278#file2069278line1932> > > > > Why do we need to consume a new port ID for the container port? Because container is running on the host network `__MESOS_TEST__` network does not fork a new network namespace. > On Aug. 6, 2018, 10:35 p.m., Chun-Hung Hsiao wrote: > > src/tests/containerizer/cni_isolator_tests.cpp > > Lines 1988 (patched) > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/68239/diff/2/?file=2069278#file2069278line1995> > > > > Nit: s/`containerId`/`containerIds`/ > > > > Also, it seems we don't use `containerId` in this test once we get them > > at all? Removed. > On Aug. 6, 2018, 10:35 p.m., Chun-Hung Hsiao wrote: > > src/tests/containerizer/cni_isolator_tests.cpp > > Lines 1957-1958 (original), 1990-1996 (patched) > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/68239/diff/2/?file=2069278#file2069278line1997> > > > > This test waits for all `TASK_RUNNING` before any `TASK_FINISHED`. What > > if the first `TASK_FINISHED` is delivered before the last `TASK_RUNNING`? > > Chun-Hung Hsiao wrote: > I missed the fact that the tasks won't finish until the `echo foo | nc` > commands happen. Dropping this. I added some comment about the nc server behavior. > On Aug. 6, 2018, 10:35 p.m., Chun-Hung Hsiao wrote: > > src/tests/containerizer/cni_isolator_tests.cpp > > Lines 2000-2004 (patched) > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/68239/diff/2/?file=2069278#file2069278line2007> > > > > Is it possible to just use this loop to get the container IDs and > > network infos? It's logically a bit weird to combine the loop. I'll stick to the current way. > On Aug. 6, 2018, 10:35 p.m., Chun-Hung Hsiao wrote: > > src/tests/containerizer/cni_isolator_tests.cpp > > Lines 2006-2012 (patched) > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/68239/diff/2/?file=2069278#file2069278line2013> > > > > How about setting up expectations for `lostExecutor` instead? I'll use this for now since this is how it was the case before. > On Aug. 6, 2018, 10:35 p.m., Chun-Hung Hsiao wrote: > > src/tests/containerizer/cni_isolator_tests.cpp > > Lines 1984-1987 (original), 2040-2043 (patched) > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/68239/diff/2/?file=2069278#file2069278line2047> > > > > If we use a matcher above, and use a`vector` instead of an array we can > > simply do `AWAIT_READY(collect(statusesFinished))` here. But I'm fine using > > loop here so not opening an issue. Good idea! > On Aug. 6, 2018, 10:35 p.m., Chun-Hung Hsiao wrote: > > src/tests/containerizer/cni_isolator_tests.cpp > > Line 2000 (original), 2045-2047 (patched) > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/68239/diff/2/?file=2069278#file2069278line2063> > > > > We could do `AWAIT_READY(collect(gcSchedule))` if `gcSchedule` is a > > vector. Good idea! - Jie ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/68239/#review206907 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Aug. 6, 2018, 8:31 p.m., Jie Yu wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/68239/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Aug. 6, 2018, 8:31 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Chun-Hung Hsiao and Greg Mann. > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > This patch updated the port mapper CNI test to launch multiple > containers concurrently. This would allow us to catch the scenarios > where multiple iptables commands are executed concurrently. > > This test fails if the fix for MESOS-9125 is not included. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/common/values.hpp 39487b955fc1a3c963f69de66ba0da869dd3ab2e > src/tests/containerizer/cni_isolator_tests.cpp > 90d2d4103c8136d2dd883318acc135f7efca80d8 > > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/68239/diff/2/ > > > Testing > ------- > > sudo make check > > > Thanks, > > Jie Yu > >
