(All tests passed) ***
aurora-scheduler-kerberos stop/waiting
aurora-scheduler start/running, process 15362
+ RETCODE=0
+ restore_netrc
+ mv /home/vagrant/.netrc.bak /home/vagrant/.netrc
+ true
Connection to 127.0.0.1 closed.
```
Thanks,
Amol Deshmukh
+ RETCODE=0
+ restore_netrc
+ mv /home/vagrant/.netrc.bak /home/vagrant/.netrc
+ true
Connection to 127.0.0.1 closed.
```
Thanks,
Amol Deshmukh
t; Can you approach this with a mock? Seems like it would be more direct
> > and less brittle way to verify calls. With the suggestion above to accept
> > `Key` and avoid the internal `bind()`, this should become much more doable
> > than with the current API.
Yes
/aurora/e2e/test_end_to_end.sh
...
*** OK (All tests passed) ***
aurora-scheduler-kerberos stop/waiting
aurora-scheduler start/running, process 15362
+ RETCODE=0
+ restore_netrc
+ mv /home/vagrant/.netrc.bak /home/vagrant/.netrc
+ true
Connection to 127.0.0.1 closed.
```
Thanks,
Amol Deshmukh
.
```
Thanks,
Amol Deshmukh
use a `StatsProvider` for this? Can we just expose call
> > counts from this class directly? Are there even threading concerns that
> > require atomicity?
>
> Amol Deshmukh wrote:
> I debated about the alternative - that would require making the injector
&
/web/ShiroWebModule.html#line.190
(static links to shiro v1.2.4 source are broken at the moment, but there is no
change wrt this method in shiro 1.2.4)
- Amol
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visi
apache.org/r/42046/#review113638
---
On Jan. 9, 2016, 12:55 a.m., Amol Deshmukh wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> http
-scheduler-kerberos stop/waiting
aurora-scheduler start/running, process 15362
+ RETCODE=0
+ restore_netrc
+ mv /home/vagrant/.netrc.bak /home/vagrant/.netrc
+ true
Connection to 127.0.0.1 closed.
```
Thanks,
Amol Deshmukh
neric.
Ack.
- Amol
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/42046/#review114557
---
On Jan. 14, 2016, 11:32 a.m.
/reviews.apache.org/r/42046/#review114560
---
On Jan. 14, 2016, 11:32 a.m., Amol Deshmukh wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
::
...
SUCCESS
```
Thanks,
Amol Deshmukh
his is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/43925/#review121023
---
On Feb. 26, 2016, 2:20 p.m., Amol Deshmukh wrote:
>
> ---
> This is
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/44106/#review120996
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Amol Deshmukh
On Feb. 26, 2016, 3 p.m
ean test
...
BUILD SUCCESSFUL
Total time: 2 mins 40.529 secs
```
* End-to-end tests
```
$ ./src/test/sh/org/apache/aurora/e2e/test_end_to_end.sh
...
*** OK (All tests passed) ***
```
Thanks,
Amol Deshmukh
/apache/aurora/e2e/test_end_to_end.sh
...
*** OK (All tests passed) ***
```
Thanks,
Amol Deshmukh
+
"org/apache/aurora/scheduler/tiers.json")
```
* Unit tests
```
$ ./gradlew clean test
...
BUILD SUCCESSFUL
Total time: 2 mins 40.529 secs
```
* End-to-end tests
```
$ ./src/test/sh/org/apache/aurora/e2e/test_end_to_end.sh
...
*** OK (All tests passed) ***
```
Thanks,
Amol Deshmukh
n March 28, 2016, 12:43 p.m., Amol Deshmukh wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/45222/
> -
Any reason to allow more than "once" (default) here? Same in other
> > tests.
>
> Amol Deshmukh wrote:
> The actual cardinality of the call ``tierManager.getTier(lowPriority)``
> here is 3:
> 1. Once
b creation failed due to error:
Invalid tier 'badtier' in TaskConfig.
```
Thanks,
Amol Deshmukh
-----
On March 29, 2016, 10:51 a.m., Amol Deshmukh wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/45222/
>
d tier 'badtier' in TaskConfig.
```
Thanks,
Amol Deshmukh
https://reviews.apache.org/r/45115/#review124628
---
On March 21, 2016, 11:36 a.m., Amol Deshmukh wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-m
s expected using this job definition:
https://gist.github.com/adeshmukh/697d013dec64498a3942
Thanks,
Amol Deshmukh
2
Thanks,
Amol Deshmukh
executed as expected using this job definition:
https://gist.github.com/adeshmukh/697d013dec64498a3942
Thanks,
Amol Deshmukh
64498a3942
Thanks,
Amol Deshmukh
definition:
https://gist.github.com/adeshmukh/697d013dec64498a3942
Thanks,
Amol Deshmukh
in 180.34 seconds
```
# Also tested using a test job in vagrant to ensure that "final" processes are
executed as expected using this job definition:
https://gist.github.com/adeshmukh/697d013dec64498a3942
Thanks,
Amol Deshmukh
r' in TaskConfig.
```
Thanks,
Amol Deshmukh
$ aurora job create devcluster/vagrant/devel/test
job.aurora
INFO] Creating job test
Job creation failed due to error:
Invalid tier 'badtier' in TaskConfig.
```
Thanks,
Amol Deshmukh
le.class.getClassLoader().getResource(TIER_CONFIG_PATH));
> > ```
Agree, the suggested alternative reads better.
- Amol
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r
/jmh/human.txt
...
```
# Python client tests:
```
./pants test.pytest --no-fast src/test/python/apache/aurora::
...
SUCCESS
```
Thanks,
Amol Deshmukh
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/43925/#review121924
---
@ReviewBot retry
- Amol Deshmukh
On March 2, 2016, 10:53 a.m
> > FAILURE
> >
> >
> > 19:08:49 08:02 [complete][31m
> >FAILURE[0m
> >
> >
> > I will refresh this build result if you post a review containing
> > "@ReviewBot retry"
@
),
additionalEndpoints:{http=Endpoint(host:127.0.0.1, port:8081)}, status:ALIVE)]
I0308 12:26:31.161 [pool-9-thread-1, FakeMaster:139] All offers consumed,
suppressing offer cycle.
I0308 12:26:36.157 [pool-9-thread-1, FakeMaster:139] All offers consumed,
suppressing offer cycle.
...
```
Thanks,
Amol
vagrant/devel/test
job.aurora
INFO] Creating job test
Job creation failed due to error:
Invalid tier 'badtier' in TaskConfig.
```
Thanks,
Amol Deshmukh
visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/45222/#review125671
---
On March 25, 2016, 5:08 p.m., Amol Deshmukh wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generat
ptional field that will
> > most likely read 'default' for all jobs. Perhaps postpone its introduction
> > until TaskConfig.tier is required?
>
> Amol Deshmukh wrote:
> I thought that leaving it blank would raise more questions for most users
> who did not use
ptional field that will
> > most likely read 'default' for all jobs. Perhaps postpone its introduction
> > until TaskConfig.tier is required?
>
> Amol Deshmukh wrote:
> I thought that leaving it blank would raise more questions for most users
> who did not use
-------
On April 28, 2016, 4:09 p.m., Amol Deshmukh wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/46803/
> --
-49fe-85e0-ee1acae3efe0__Jobs_by_Role.png
Per Job Config Summary
https://reviews.apache.org/media/uploaded/files/2016/04/29/8a666fe7-9a35-427f-b1ee-f41e5413059d__Per_Job_Config_Summary.png
Thanks,
Amol Deshmukh
42 matches
Mail list logo
