Re: Review Request 53950: Avoided hardcoding ports in some tests.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/53950/#review156907 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Alexander Rukletsov On Nov. 24, 2016,

Re: Review Request 53950: Avoided hardcoding ports in some tests.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/53950/#review156898 --- Patch looks great! Reviews applied: [53948, 53986, 53949, 53950]

Re: Review Request 53950: Avoided hardcoding ports in some tests.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/53950/ --- (Updated Nov. 24, 2016, 6:39 p.m.) Review request for mesos, Alexander

Re: Review Request 53950: Avoided hardcoding ports in some tests.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/53950/#review156693 --- Ship it! Ship It! - haosdent huang On Nov. 22, 2016, 7:49

Re: Review Request 53950: Avoided hardcoding ports in some tests.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/53950/#review156623 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Gastón Kleiman On Nov. 22, 2016, 7:49

Re: Review Request 53950: Avoided hardcoding ports in some tests.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/53950/ --- (Updated Nov. 22, 2016, 8:49 p.m.) Review request for mesos, Alexander

Re: Review Request 53950: Avoided hardcoding ports in some tests.

> On Nov. 22, 2016, 6:18 p.m., Gastón Kleiman wrote: > > src/tests/containerizer/docker_containerizer_tests.cpp, lines 3972-3974 > > > > > > Why is this done in a different way than in the other file? > > > >

Re: Review Request 53950: Avoided hardcoding ports in some tests.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/53950/#review156589 --- src/tests/containerizer/docker_containerizer_tests.cpp (lines

Re: Review Request 53950: Avoided hardcoding ports in some tests.

> On Nov. 22, 2016, 2:47 p.m., haosdent huang wrote: > > src/tests/health_check_tests.cpp, line 105 > > > > > > I am thinking if we could > > > > ``` > > const uint16_t testPort = getFreePort().get();

Re: Review Request 53950: Avoided hardcoding ports in some tests.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/53950/ --- (Updated Nov. 22, 2016, 4:49 p.m.) Review request for mesos, Alexander

Re: Review Request 53950: Avoided hardcoding ports in some tests.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/53950/#review156571 --- src/tests/health_check_tests.cpp (line 105)

Re: Review Request 53950: Avoided hardcoding ports in some tests.

> On Nov. 21, 2016, 8:01 p.m., Gastón Kleiman wrote: > > `src/tests/containerizer/port_mapping_tests.cpp` also uses a hard-coded > > port (they were the "inspiration" behind tht health check tests), I guess > > we should update those as well. Thanks for the pointer, these tests look indeed

Re: Review Request 53950: Avoided hardcoding ports in some tests.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/53950/#review156501 --- Patch looks great! Reviews applied: [53948, 53949, 53950]

Re: Review Request 53950: Avoided hardcoding ports in some tests.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/53950/#review156489 --- `src/tests/containerizer/port_mapping_tests.cpp` also uses a