----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39711/#review104322 -----------------------------------------------------------
common/src/main/java/org/apache/falcon/entity/FeedHelper.java (line 808) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/39711/#comment162578> I don't fully understand the fix here. If retention stage is not defined for lifecycle shouldn't it fallback to old retention policy? Retetion policy frequency was not validated before. Now, with your code change retention validation happens even for those cases isn't if user defnes lifecycle without retention stage. Isn't it breaking the old behavior. If retention stage is not defined even when lifecycle is present then it shoudl fall back to old behavior. So validation should be skipped and retention should be set as in FeedRetentionCoordinatorBuilder. Am I missing something here? - Sowmya Ramesh On Oct. 28, 2015, 6:04 p.m., Ajay Yadava wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/39711/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Oct. 28, 2015, 6:04 p.m.) > > > Review request for Falcon. > > > Bugs: FALCON-1560 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FALCON-1560 > > > Repository: falcon-git > > > Description > ------- > > Lifecycle does not allow feed with frequency greater than days(1) > > > Diffs > ----- > > common/src/main/java/org/apache/falcon/entity/FeedHelper.java 5c252a8 > common/src/test/java/org/apache/falcon/entity/FeedHelperTest.java 4020d36 > > common/src/test/java/org/apache/falcon/entity/parser/FeedEntityParserTest.java > 905be68 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39711/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Added unit test for the scenarios. > > > Thanks, > > Ajay Yadava > >
