[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-2635?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14157624#comment-14157624
]
Sandy Ryza commented on YARN-2635:
----------------------------------
This seems like a good idea. A few stylistic comments.
Can we rename RMSchedulerParametrizedTestBase to
ParameterizedSchedulerTestBase? The former confuses me a little because it
like something that happened, rather than a noun, and "RM" doesn't seem
necessary. Also, Parameterized as spelled in the JUnit class name has three
e's. Lastly, can the class include some header comments on what it's doing?
{code}
+ protected void configScheduler(YarnConfiguration conf) throws IOException {
+ // Configure scheduler
{code}
Just name the method configureScheduler instead of an abbreviation then comment.
{code}
+ private void configFifoScheduler(YarnConfiguration conf) {
+ conf.set(YarnConfiguration.RM_SCHEDULER, FifoScheduler.class.getName());
+ }
+
+ private void configCapacityScheduler(YarnConfiguration conf) {
+ conf.set(YarnConfiguration.RM_SCHEDULER,
CapacityScheduler.class.getName());
+ }
{code}
These are only one line - can we just inline them?
{code}
+ protected YarnConfiguration conf = null;
{code}
I think better to make this private and expose it through a getConfig method.
Running the tests without FIFO seems reasonable to me.
One last thought - not sure how feasible this is, but the code might be simpler
if we get rid of SchedulerType and just have the parameters be Configuration
objects?
> TestRMRestart should run with all schedulers
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Key: YARN-2635
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-2635
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Wei Yan
> Assignee: Wei Yan
> Attachments: YARN-2635-1.patch, YARN-2635-2.patch, yarn-2635-3.patch
>
>
> If we change the scheduler from Capacity Scheduler to Fair Scheduler, the
> TestRMRestart would fail.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
