-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/68414/#review207536
-----------------------------------------------------------



Great! You just saved me 9 seconds every time I run make check :)


src/tests/authentication_tests.cpp
Lines 825-827 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/68414/#comment290932>

    Can you add some comments on why we use the registration backoff factor 
here instead of the authentication one? Is there a ticket we can point to 
suggesting the fix to have the authentication path not use the registration 
factor?
    
    Also, for these, it would be helpful to know why the factor is enough, 
isn't the first window `[min,min+factor*2^0]`?



src/tests/authentication_tests.cpp
Lines 838-839 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/68414/#comment290933>

    For the registration ones, maybe a little note about why advancing by the 
factor is enough? Because the first range is `[0,factor*2^0]`?


- Benjamin Mahler


On Aug. 17, 2018, 6:38 p.m., Meng Zhu wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/68414/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Aug. 17, 2018, 6:38 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Mahler and Gastón Kleiman.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> This patch pauses and manipulates the clock for all
> authentication tests. This makes the test less flaky-prone
> and speeds up the test run time.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/tests/authentication_tests.cpp f7a2cf17cf6154c9c67e405661bba57cf1254845 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/68414/diff/1/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check, and authentication tests ran continously without failure.
> 
> Authentication test took:
> before: 0m15.282s
> after:  0m6.847s
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Meng Zhu
> 
>

Reply via email to