-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/69781/#review212122
-----------------------------------------------------------



Ah... thanks for fixing this. Actually when I reviewed r/69687 I did have a 
concern about expecting two `UpdateSlaveMessage`s without a paused clock but 
then forgot about the concern and gave a ship-it :(


src/tests/storage_local_resource_provider_tests.cpp
Line 3319 (original), 3319 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/69781/#comment297740>

    How about moving this to the very beginning and pause the clock for the 
whole test?



src/tests/storage_local_resource_provider_tests.cpp
Lines 3340 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/69781/#comment297741>

    Could it be possible that the second `UpdateSlaveMessage` has been received 
before this `FUTURE_PROTOBUF` is set up?


- Chun-Hung Hsiao


On Jan. 17, 2019, 11:15 a.m., Benjamin Bannier wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/69781/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Jan. 17, 2019, 11:15 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos and Chun-Hung Hsiao.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-9130
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-9130
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> While we addressed one source of flakiness of this test in
> `2117f671c450d7c74edc53078e8c0ed6035020aa` we introduced a new source of
> flakiness (agents send more than the expected number of
> `UpdateSlaveMessage`s since they failed a timeout in registration with
> the master).
> 
> This patch ensures that the agent registers successfully before
> continuing with the test.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/tests/storage_local_resource_provider_tests.cpp 
> 164e93a3749d4d668e12de31641aecddddece384 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/69781/diff/1/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> `make check`
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Benjamin Bannier
> 
>

Reply via email to