> On Oct. 8, 2018, 4:18 p.m., Sergio Pena wrote:
> > sentry-hdfs/sentry-hdfs-service/src/main/java/org/apache/sentry/hdfs/DBUpdateForwarder.java
> > Lines 248-266 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/68547/diff/11/?file=2094968#file2094968line248>
> >
> >     Is there a way to mock the cache objects instead of having new methods 
> > to get its internal value? Or mock the imageRetriever and verify it was 
> > called when a cache is not valid.

I would then have to encapsulate these attributes cacheImgNum, cacheSequenceNum 
into their own class. Then they can be mocked. In your previous code review, 
you were against created unnecessary classes so it wasn't done


- Arjun


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/68547/#review209315
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Oct. 5, 2018, 7:11 p.m., Arjun Mishra wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/68547/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Oct. 5, 2018, 7:11 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for sentry, kalyan kumar kalvagadda, Na Li, and Sergio Pena.
> 
> 
> Bugs: SENTRY-2370
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SENTRY-2370
> 
> 
> Repository: sentry
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> When NN requests path updates from sentry and if it exceeds the time 
> threshold, on consecutive attempts sentry will attempt to fetch the full 
> update from scratch. Instead it should cache it and update the cache before 
> sending it to NN
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   
> sentry-hdfs/sentry-hdfs-service/src/main/java/org/apache/sentry/hdfs/DBUpdateForwarder.java
>  08b16a4df 
>   
> sentry-hdfs/sentry-hdfs-service/src/test/java/org/apache/sentry/hdfs/TestDBUpdateForwarder.java
>  f86ce6f83 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/68547/diff/11/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Arjun Mishra
> 
>

Reply via email to