Re: Review Request 52056: Exposed unknown container case from Containerizer::destroy.

[Guangya Liu]

> On 九月 20, 2016, 1:27 p.m., Guangya Liu wrote:
> > src/slave/containerizer/composing.cpp, line 462
> > 
> >
> > Why kill this message? Ditto for others
> 
> Benjamin Mahler wrote:
> Hm.. I opted not to log since the caller is now responsible. But since 
> the agent isn't logging destroy failures or unknown containers yet, I'll 
> restore these and add a TODO to have the caller log instead eventually. Note 
> that the agent logs the unknown container case for `wait()` (so I'll keep 
> that omitted).

Good to know, thanks Ben.


- Guangya


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/52056/#review149620
---


On 九月 23, 2016, 7:46 p.m., Benjamin Mahler wrote:
> 
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/52056/
> ---
> 
> (Updated 九月 23, 2016, 7:46 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Jie Yu and Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-6243
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-6243
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> ---
> 
> Currently the callers of `destroy` cannot determine if the call
> succeeds or fails (without a secondary call to `wait()`).
> 
> This also allows the caller to distinguish between a failure and
> waiting on an unknown container. This is important for the upcoming
> agent child container API, as the end-user would benefit from the
> distinction.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -
> 
>   src/slave/containerizer/composing.hpp 
> ef3c2ee22cf0ced35c64025c7f9f7ca75165d54d 
>   src/slave/containerizer/composing.cpp 
> 5ff3e65facd5831e2637ae1cee3ea01b21d0f6b2 
>   src/slave/containerizer/containerizer.hpp 
> f13669d0dfc4ce3287cfe630cabd0470dc765b51 
>   src/slave/containerizer/docker.hpp a378fa9772742b4934578efcec54aeeaf5791a83 
>   src/slave/containerizer/docker.cpp 110a1eb41b1ff7cb94f3630a1843d9f01efbe09c 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/containerizer.hpp 
> 078ef4f4e7bf5e1522804a720c51cfa5518d8efd 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/containerizer.cpp 
> dc18e4e3b0eca3f116f1e240217bbebf64a75e3a 
>   src/tests/containerizer.hpp f1fd57945c09fb80b7790f9124843a5d4ea785ee 
>   src/tests/containerizer.cpp bda3e6f84f77a95f0eb9ff3aabdc9513f0f18b3f 
>   src/tests/containerizer/composing_containerizer_tests.cpp 
> 51aab33cd190b53328339e39fd12853714882454 
>   src/tests/containerizer/docker_containerizer_tests.cpp 
> 28cd3fa66886dbdbae3fdeca77707147faafcb7a 
>   src/tests/containerizer/mesos_containerizer_tests.cpp 
> 96e24500a12825161553eb050da389088b122695 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/52056/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> ---
> 
> Added tests.
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Benjamin Mahler
> 
>

Re: Review Request 52056: Exposed unknown container case from Containerizer::destroy.

[Benjamin Mahler]

---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/52056/
---

(Updated Sept. 23, 2016, 7:46 p.m.)


Review request for mesos, Jie Yu and Vinod Kone.


Changes
---

Added JIRA ticket.


Bugs: MESOS-6243
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-6243


Repository: mesos


Description
---

Currently the callers of `destroy` cannot determine if the call
succeeds or fails (without a secondary call to `wait()`).

This also allows the caller to distinguish between a failure and
waiting on an unknown container. This is important for the upcoming
agent child container API, as the end-user would benefit from the
distinction.


Diffs
-

  src/slave/containerizer/composing.hpp 
ef3c2ee22cf0ced35c64025c7f9f7ca75165d54d 
  src/slave/containerizer/composing.cpp 
5ff3e65facd5831e2637ae1cee3ea01b21d0f6b2 
  src/slave/containerizer/containerizer.hpp 
f13669d0dfc4ce3287cfe630cabd0470dc765b51 
  src/slave/containerizer/docker.hpp a378fa9772742b4934578efcec54aeeaf5791a83 
  src/slave/containerizer/docker.cpp 110a1eb41b1ff7cb94f3630a1843d9f01efbe09c 
  src/slave/containerizer/mesos/containerizer.hpp 
078ef4f4e7bf5e1522804a720c51cfa5518d8efd 
  src/slave/containerizer/mesos/containerizer.cpp 
dc18e4e3b0eca3f116f1e240217bbebf64a75e3a 
  src/tests/containerizer.hpp f1fd57945c09fb80b7790f9124843a5d4ea785ee 
  src/tests/containerizer.cpp bda3e6f84f77a95f0eb9ff3aabdc9513f0f18b3f 
  src/tests/containerizer/composing_containerizer_tests.cpp 
51aab33cd190b53328339e39fd12853714882454 
  src/tests/containerizer/docker_containerizer_tests.cpp 
28cd3fa66886dbdbae3fdeca77707147faafcb7a 
  src/tests/containerizer/mesos_containerizer_tests.cpp 
96e24500a12825161553eb050da389088b122695 

Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/52056/diff/


Testing
---

Added tests.

make check


Thanks,

Benjamin Mahler

Re: Review Request 52056: Exposed unknown container case from Containerizer::destroy.

[Benjamin Mahler]

> On Sept. 20, 2016, 11:06 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
> > src/slave/containerizer/composing.cpp, line 487
> > 
> >
> > Maybe add at the end "If we do not defer here and instead associate the 
> > future right away, the setting of `Container.destroy` in `_launch()` will 
> > be a no-op; this might result in users waiting on the future incorrectly 
> > thinking that the destroy failed when in fact the destory is implicitly 
> > successful because the launch failed."

Sounds good!


- Benjamin


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/52056/#review149738
---


On Sept. 20, 2016, 1:22 a.m., Benjamin Mahler wrote:
> 
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/52056/
> ---
> 
> (Updated Sept. 20, 2016, 1:22 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Jie Yu and Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> ---
> 
> Currently the callers of `destroy` cannot determine if the call
> succeeds or fails (without a secondary call to `wait()`).
> 
> This also allows the caller to distinguish between a failure and
> waiting on an unknown container. This is important for the upcoming
> agent child container API, as the end-user would benefit from the
> distinction.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -
> 
>   src/slave/containerizer/composing.hpp 
> ef3c2ee22cf0ced35c64025c7f9f7ca75165d54d 
>   src/slave/containerizer/composing.cpp 
> 5ff3e65facd5831e2637ae1cee3ea01b21d0f6b2 
>   src/slave/containerizer/containerizer.hpp 
> f13669d0dfc4ce3287cfe630cabd0470dc765b51 
>   src/slave/containerizer/docker.hpp a378fa9772742b4934578efcec54aeeaf5791a83 
>   src/slave/containerizer/docker.cpp 110a1eb41b1ff7cb94f3630a1843d9f01efbe09c 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/containerizer.hpp 
> 078ef4f4e7bf5e1522804a720c51cfa5518d8efd 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/containerizer.cpp 
> dc18e4e3b0eca3f116f1e240217bbebf64a75e3a 
>   src/tests/containerizer.hpp f1fd57945c09fb80b7790f9124843a5d4ea785ee 
>   src/tests/containerizer.cpp bda3e6f84f77a95f0eb9ff3aabdc9513f0f18b3f 
>   src/tests/containerizer/composing_containerizer_tests.cpp 
> 51aab33cd190b53328339e39fd12853714882454 
>   src/tests/containerizer/docker_containerizer_tests.cpp 
> 28cd3fa66886dbdbae3fdeca77707147faafcb7a 
>   src/tests/containerizer/mesos_containerizer_tests.cpp 
> 96e24500a12825161553eb050da389088b122695 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/52056/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> ---
> 
> Added tests.
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Benjamin Mahler
> 
>

Re: Review Request 52056: Exposed unknown container case from Containerizer::destroy.

[Benjamin Mahler]

> On Sept. 20, 2016, 1:27 p.m., Guangya Liu wrote:
> > src/slave/containerizer/mesos/containerizer.hpp, lines 107-108
> > 
> >
> > one line?

All other functions above are wrapped even if they fit on another line, so this 
is for consistency (and it looks a bit more readable).


> On Sept. 20, 2016, 1:27 p.m., Guangya Liu wrote:
> > src/slave/containerizer/mesos/containerizer.hpp, lines 176-177
> > 
> >
> > one line?

Ditto here.


> On Sept. 20, 2016, 1:27 p.m., Guangya Liu wrote:
> > src/tests/containerizer/composing_containerizer_tests.cpp, line 171
> > 
> >
> > s/mockContainerizer/mockContainerizer1

Sounds good, I'll do a sweep of all three tests in a separate patch.


> On Sept. 20, 2016, 1:27 p.m., Guangya Liu wrote:
> > src/slave/containerizer/composing.cpp, line 313
> > 
> >
> > Do we need a swept for this? This update may make the file not 
> > consistent, some using `containers_.at(containerId)` whlile some using 
> > `containers_[containerId]`

Will add a separate sweep patch.


> On Sept. 20, 2016, 1:27 p.m., Guangya Liu wrote:
> > src/tests/containerizer/docker_containerizer_tests.cpp, line 3334
> > 
> >
> > why wait recover here?

I thought it was part of the API contract to call recover first, but since 
other tests avoid it, I'll remove it.


> On Sept. 20, 2016, 1:27 p.m., Guangya Liu wrote:
> > src/slave/containerizer/composing.cpp, line 462
> > 
> >
> > Why kill this message? Ditto for others

Hm.. I opted not to log since the caller is now responsible. But since the 
agent isn't logging destroy failures or unknown containers yet, I'll restore 
these and add a TODO to have the caller log instead eventually. Note that the 
agent logs the unknown container case for `wait()` (so I'll keep that omitted).


- Benjamin


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/52056/#review149620
---


On Sept. 20, 2016, 1:22 a.m., Benjamin Mahler wrote:
> 
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/52056/
> ---
> 
> (Updated Sept. 20, 2016, 1:22 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Jie Yu and Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> ---
> 
> Currently the callers of `destroy` cannot determine if the call
> succeeds or fails (without a secondary call to `wait()`).
> 
> This also allows the caller to distinguish between a failure and
> waiting on an unknown container. This is important for the upcoming
> agent child container API, as the end-user would benefit from the
> distinction.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -
> 
>   src/slave/containerizer/composing.hpp 
> ef3c2ee22cf0ced35c64025c7f9f7ca75165d54d 
>   src/slave/containerizer/composing.cpp 
> 5ff3e65facd5831e2637ae1cee3ea01b21d0f6b2 
>   src/slave/containerizer/containerizer.hpp 
> f13669d0dfc4ce3287cfe630cabd0470dc765b51 
>   src/slave/containerizer/docker.hpp a378fa9772742b4934578efcec54aeeaf5791a83 
>   src/slave/containerizer/docker.cpp 110a1eb41b1ff7cb94f3630a1843d9f01efbe09c 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/containerizer.hpp 
> 078ef4f4e7bf5e1522804a720c51cfa5518d8efd 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/containerizer.cpp 
> dc18e4e3b0eca3f116f1e240217bbebf64a75e3a 
>   src/tests/containerizer.hpp f1fd57945c09fb80b7790f9124843a5d4ea785ee 
>   src/tests/containerizer.cpp bda3e6f84f77a95f0eb9ff3aabdc9513f0f18b3f 
>   src/tests/containerizer/composing_containerizer_tests.cpp 
> 51aab33cd190b53328339e39fd12853714882454 
>   src/tests/containerizer/docker_containerizer_tests.cpp 
> 28cd3fa66886dbdbae3fdeca77707147faafcb7a 
>   src/tests/containerizer/mesos_containerizer_tests.cpp 
> 96e24500a12825161553eb050da389088b122695 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/52056/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> ---
> 
> Added tests.
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Benjamin Mahler
> 
>

Re: Review Request 52056: Exposed unknown container case from Containerizer::destroy.

[Vinod Kone]

---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/52056/#review149738
---


Fix it, then Ship it!





src/slave/containerizer/composing.cpp (line 478)


s/the launch/`launch()`/



src/slave/containerizer/composing.cpp (line 483)


"return a successful destroy" is a bit confusing. How about "indicate a 
successful destroy (by setting `Container.destroyed` to true in `_launch()`)"?



src/slave/containerizer/composing.cpp (line 485)


Maybe add at the end "If we do not defer here and instead associate the 
future right away, the setting of `Container.destroy` in `_launch()` will be a 
no-op; this might result in users waiting on the future incorrectly thinking 
that the destroy failed when in fact the destory is implicitly successful 
because the launch failed."


- Vinod Kone


On Sept. 20, 2016, 1:22 a.m., Benjamin Mahler wrote:
> 
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/52056/
> ---
> 
> (Updated Sept. 20, 2016, 1:22 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Jie Yu and Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> ---
> 
> Currently the callers of `destroy` cannot determine if the call
> succeeds or fails (without a secondary call to `wait()`).
> 
> This also allows the caller to distinguish between a failure and
> waiting on an unknown container. This is important for the upcoming
> agent child container API, as the end-user would benefit from the
> distinction.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -
> 
>   src/slave/containerizer/composing.hpp 
> ef3c2ee22cf0ced35c64025c7f9f7ca75165d54d 
>   src/slave/containerizer/composing.cpp 
> 5ff3e65facd5831e2637ae1cee3ea01b21d0f6b2 
>   src/slave/containerizer/containerizer.hpp 
> f13669d0dfc4ce3287cfe630cabd0470dc765b51 
>   src/slave/containerizer/docker.hpp a378fa9772742b4934578efcec54aeeaf5791a83 
>   src/slave/containerizer/docker.cpp 110a1eb41b1ff7cb94f3630a1843d9f01efbe09c 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/containerizer.hpp 
> 078ef4f4e7bf5e1522804a720c51cfa5518d8efd 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/containerizer.cpp 
> dc18e4e3b0eca3f116f1e240217bbebf64a75e3a 
>   src/tests/containerizer.hpp f1fd57945c09fb80b7790f9124843a5d4ea785ee 
>   src/tests/containerizer.cpp bda3e6f84f77a95f0eb9ff3aabdc9513f0f18b3f 
>   src/tests/containerizer/composing_containerizer_tests.cpp 
> 51aab33cd190b53328339e39fd12853714882454 
>   src/tests/containerizer/docker_containerizer_tests.cpp 
> 28cd3fa66886dbdbae3fdeca77707147faafcb7a 
>   src/tests/containerizer/mesos_containerizer_tests.cpp 
> 96e24500a12825161553eb050da389088b122695 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/52056/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> ---
> 
> Added tests.
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Benjamin Mahler
> 
>

Re: Review Request 52056: Exposed unknown container case from Containerizer::destroy.

[Guangya Liu]

---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/52056/#review149620
---




src/slave/containerizer/composing.cpp (line 312)


Do we need a swept for this? This update may make the file not consistent, 
some using `containers_.at(containerId)` whlile some using 
`containers_[containerId]`



src/slave/containerizer/composing.cpp (line 461)


Why kill this message? Ditto for others



src/slave/containerizer/mesos/containerizer.hpp (lines 107 - 108)


one line?



src/slave/containerizer/mesos/containerizer.hpp (lines 176 - 177)


one line?



src/tests/containerizer/composing_containerizer_tests.cpp (line 171)


s/mockContainerizer/mockContainerizer1



src/tests/containerizer/docker_containerizer_tests.cpp (line 3334)


why wait recover here?


- Guangya Liu


On 九月 20, 2016, 1:22 a.m., Benjamin Mahler wrote:
> 
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/52056/
> ---
> 
> (Updated 九月 20, 2016, 1:22 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Jie Yu and Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> ---
> 
> Currently the callers of `destroy` cannot determine if the call
> succeeds or fails (without a secondary call to `wait()`).
> 
> This also allows the caller to distinguish between a failure and
> waiting on an unknown container. This is important for the upcoming
> agent child container API, as the end-user would benefit from the
> distinction.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -
> 
>   src/slave/containerizer/composing.hpp 
> ef3c2ee22cf0ced35c64025c7f9f7ca75165d54d 
>   src/slave/containerizer/composing.cpp 
> 5ff3e65facd5831e2637ae1cee3ea01b21d0f6b2 
>   src/slave/containerizer/containerizer.hpp 
> f13669d0dfc4ce3287cfe630cabd0470dc765b51 
>   src/slave/containerizer/docker.hpp a378fa9772742b4934578efcec54aeeaf5791a83 
>   src/slave/containerizer/docker.cpp 110a1eb41b1ff7cb94f3630a1843d9f01efbe09c 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/containerizer.hpp 
> 078ef4f4e7bf5e1522804a720c51cfa5518d8efd 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/containerizer.cpp 
> dc18e4e3b0eca3f116f1e240217bbebf64a75e3a 
>   src/tests/containerizer.hpp f1fd57945c09fb80b7790f9124843a5d4ea785ee 
>   src/tests/containerizer.cpp bda3e6f84f77a95f0eb9ff3aabdc9513f0f18b3f 
>   src/tests/containerizer/composing_containerizer_tests.cpp 
> 51aab33cd190b53328339e39fd12853714882454 
>   src/tests/containerizer/docker_containerizer_tests.cpp 
> 28cd3fa66886dbdbae3fdeca77707147faafcb7a 
>   src/tests/containerizer/mesos_containerizer_tests.cpp 
> 96e24500a12825161553eb050da389088b122695 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/52056/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> ---
> 
> Added tests.
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Benjamin Mahler
> 
>

Re: Review Request 52056: Exposed unknown container case from Containerizer::destroy.

[Mesos ReviewBot]

---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/52056/#review149626
---



Bad patch!

Reviews applied: [52056, 52055, 52054, 52053]

Failed command: ./support/apply-review.sh -n -r 52056

Error:
2016-09-20 08:05:43 URL:https://reviews.apache.org/r/52056/diff/raw/ 
[24286/24286] -> "52056.patch" [1]
error: patch failed: src/slave/containerizer/docker.cpp:1795
error: src/slave/containerizer/docker.cpp: patch does not apply

Full log: https://builds.apache.org/job/mesos-reviewbot/15326/console

- Mesos ReviewBot


On Sept. 20, 2016, 1:22 a.m., Benjamin Mahler wrote:
> 
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/52056/
> ---
> 
> (Updated Sept. 20, 2016, 1:22 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Jie Yu and Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> ---
> 
> Currently the callers of `destroy` cannot determine if the call
> succeeds or fails (without a secondary call to `wait()`).
> 
> This also allows the caller to distinguish between a failure and
> waiting on an unknown container. This is important for the upcoming
> agent child container API, as the end-user would benefit from the
> distinction.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -
> 
>   src/slave/containerizer/composing.hpp 
> ef3c2ee22cf0ced35c64025c7f9f7ca75165d54d 
>   src/slave/containerizer/composing.cpp 
> 5ff3e65facd5831e2637ae1cee3ea01b21d0f6b2 
>   src/slave/containerizer/containerizer.hpp 
> f13669d0dfc4ce3287cfe630cabd0470dc765b51 
>   src/slave/containerizer/docker.hpp a378fa9772742b4934578efcec54aeeaf5791a83 
>   src/slave/containerizer/docker.cpp 110a1eb41b1ff7cb94f3630a1843d9f01efbe09c 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/containerizer.hpp 
> 078ef4f4e7bf5e1522804a720c51cfa5518d8efd 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/containerizer.cpp 
> dc18e4e3b0eca3f116f1e240217bbebf64a75e3a 
>   src/tests/containerizer.hpp f1fd57945c09fb80b7790f9124843a5d4ea785ee 
>   src/tests/containerizer.cpp bda3e6f84f77a95f0eb9ff3aabdc9513f0f18b3f 
>   src/tests/containerizer/composing_containerizer_tests.cpp 
> 51aab33cd190b53328339e39fd12853714882454 
>   src/tests/containerizer/docker_containerizer_tests.cpp 
> 28cd3fa66886dbdbae3fdeca77707147faafcb7a 
>   src/tests/containerizer/mesos_containerizer_tests.cpp 
> 96e24500a12825161553eb050da389088b122695 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/52056/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> ---
> 
> Added tests.
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Benjamin Mahler
> 
>

Review Request 52056: Exposed unknown container case from Containerizer::destroy.

[Benjamin Mahler]

---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/52056/
---

Review request for mesos, Jie Yu and Vinod Kone.


Repository: mesos


Description
---

Currently the callers of `destroy` cannot determine if the call
succeeds or fails (without a secondary call to `wait()`).

This also allows the caller to distinguish between a failure and
waiting on an unknown container. This is important for the upcoming
agent child container API, as the end-user would benefit from the
distinction.


Diffs
-

  src/slave/containerizer/composing.hpp 
ef3c2ee22cf0ced35c64025c7f9f7ca75165d54d 
  src/slave/containerizer/composing.cpp 
5ff3e65facd5831e2637ae1cee3ea01b21d0f6b2 
  src/slave/containerizer/containerizer.hpp 
f13669d0dfc4ce3287cfe630cabd0470dc765b51 
  src/slave/containerizer/docker.hpp a378fa9772742b4934578efcec54aeeaf5791a83 
  src/slave/containerizer/docker.cpp 110a1eb41b1ff7cb94f3630a1843d9f01efbe09c 
  src/slave/containerizer/mesos/containerizer.hpp 
078ef4f4e7bf5e1522804a720c51cfa5518d8efd 
  src/slave/containerizer/mesos/containerizer.cpp 
dc18e4e3b0eca3f116f1e240217bbebf64a75e3a 
  src/tests/containerizer.hpp f1fd57945c09fb80b7790f9124843a5d4ea785ee 
  src/tests/containerizer.cpp bda3e6f84f77a95f0eb9ff3aabdc9513f0f18b3f 
  src/tests/containerizer/composing_containerizer_tests.cpp 
51aab33cd190b53328339e39fd12853714882454 
  src/tests/containerizer/docker_containerizer_tests.cpp 
28cd3fa66886dbdbae3fdeca77707147faafcb7a 
  src/tests/containerizer/mesos_containerizer_tests.cpp 
96e24500a12825161553eb050da389088b122695 

Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/52056/diff/


Testing
---

Added tests.

make check


Thanks,

Benjamin Mahler