> On April 10, 2017, 3:56 p.m., Na Li wrote:
> > sentry-hdfs/sentry-hdfs-common/src/main/java/org/apache/sentry/hdfs/FullUpdateInitializer.java
> > Line 128 (original), 221 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/58284/diff/1/?file=1686934#file1686934line230>
> >
> >     should retries = i + 1?

Looks like 'retries' is only used for reporting. I didn't change the retry code 
at all - we can handle this as a separate refactoring.


> On April 10, 2017, 3:56 p.m., Na Li wrote:
> > sentry-hdfs/sentry-hdfs-common/src/main/java/org/apache/sentry/hdfs/FullUpdateInitializer.java
> > Line 129 (original), 222 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/58284/diff/1/?file=1686934#file1686934line231>
> >
> >     should we use "break" to get out of the for() loop instead of setting 
> > "i = retryStrategyMaxRetries;"? In current implementation, the line 226 
> > "retries = i;" will be called when InterruptedException  is called, then 
> > "retries" will be set as "retryStrategyMaxRetries". That is not correct

The existing code isn't very clear but seems to be doing the job. I have not 
touched any of the retry logic - can we handle this separately, if needed?


> On April 10, 2017, 3:56 p.m., Na Li wrote:
> > sentry-hdfs/sentry-hdfs-common/src/test/java/org/apache/sentry/hdfs/TestFullUpdateInitializer.java
> > Line 125 (original), 214 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/58284/diff/1/?file=1686937#file1686937line276>
> >
> >     can we have the test case that the first time, client returns 
> > exception, but the second time, it returns correct result. This is to test 
> > the retry behavior.

There was no original test for this as well. I agree, this would be good to 
test, I suggest doing this separately from this changeset which is specificaly 
for the snapshot creation logic.


- Alexander


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/58284/#review171443
-----------------------------------------------------------


On April 10, 2017, 5:42 a.m., Alexander Kolbasov wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/58284/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated April 10, 2017, 5:42 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for sentry, Hao Hao, kalyan kumar kalvagadda, Na Li, Sergio 
> Pena, Vamsee Yarlagadda, and Vadim Spector.
> 
> 
> Bugs: SENTRY-1687
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SENTRY-1687
> 
> 
> Repository: sentry
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> SENTRY-1687 FullUpdateInitializer can be more efficient
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   
> sentry-hdfs/sentry-hdfs-common/src/main/java/org/apache/sentry/hdfs/FullUpdateInitializer.java
>  90aaaef0e15306627d7108f12a74a29848055c0b 
>   
> sentry-hdfs/sentry-hdfs-common/src/main/java/org/apache/sentry/hdfs/PathsUpdate.java
>  14e967aa1065f16e8d4c3f61db2f9055959fa9e6 
>   
> sentry-hdfs/sentry-hdfs-common/src/main/java/org/apache/sentry/hdfs/ServiceConstants.java
>  23552c2512902a8500bfacb1c745ca4b10498cc8 
>   
> sentry-hdfs/sentry-hdfs-common/src/test/java/org/apache/sentry/hdfs/TestFullUpdateInitializer.java
>  f338ce8abddcde128536a0efef77983990325aa6 
>   
> sentry-hdfs/sentry-hdfs-common/src/test/java/org/apache/sentry/hdfs/TestPathsUpdate.java
>  b5cbea9d295385bb38b912c13903edace04d7589 
>   
> sentry-hdfs/sentry-hdfs-common/src/test/java/org/apache/sentry/hdfs/TestUpdateableAuthzPaths.java
>  e643e01a45de77ef7f465d6921c5ae9e7ce925a2 
>   
> sentry-provider/sentry-provider-db/src/main/java/org/apache/sentry/service/thrift/HMSFollower.java
>  16676fb13b0d5015aefe892a6f7e46812ea75124 
>   
> sentry-tests/sentry-tests-hive/src/test/java/org/apache/sentry/tests/e2e/hdfs/TestHDFSIntegrationAdvanced.java
>  24ab1a8b392f23bc75759733bef7cecd4bc2ac34 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/58284/diff/1/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Updated the unit test to test for bigger HMS snapshots
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Alexander Kolbasov
> 
>

Reply via email to