-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/68230/#review208081
-----------------------------------------------------------



I think this patch should be put in the end of this patch chain since it can 
only succeed after r/68232 is applied.


src/tests/api_tests.cpp
Lines 6585 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/68230/#comment291842>

    This is a parameterized test, but I do not see you call `GetParam()` to get 
the parameter.



src/tests/api_tests.cpp
Lines 6740 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/68230/#comment291837>

    Is `taskContainerId` same with the `status.container_id()` that we got from 
status update? If yes, why not just use that one?



src/tests/api_tests.cpp
Lines 6744-6746 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/68230/#comment291838>

    Can we just do the following instead?
    ```
    containerId.mutable_parent()->CopyFrom(status.container_id());
    ```



src/tests/api_tests.cpp
Lines 6777 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/68230/#comment291839>

    Can we do `pkill sleep` instead?


- Qian Zhang


On Aug. 25, 2018, 6:11 p.m., Andrei Budnik wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/68230/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Aug. 25, 2018, 6:11 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Alexander Rukletsov, Gilbert Song, and Qian Zhang.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-9131
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-9131
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> This test verifies that IOSwitchboard, which holds an open HTTP input
> connection, terminates once IO redirects finish for the corresponding
> nested container.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/tests/api_tests.cpp ee82350f7a6c6d44ba0590608e7d9a223c0be169 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/68230/diff/1/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Andrei Budnik
> 
>

Reply via email to