> On Sept. 16, 2016, 3:44 p.m., Robert Nettleton wrote: > > Thanks for providing this patch. This is a feature in Blueprints that is > > sorely needed, and will be beneficial for Blueprints generally. > > > > I would ask, if possible, that some consideration be put into making the > > XML syntax for specifying conditions on dependencies a little more generic, > > and then making the two conditional types implemented here be subtypes of > > the generic type. My thinking here is that having this be just a little > > more flexible may benefit Blueprints in the future, as more conditional > > types may be required for different usage types. > > > > I agree completely that conditions based on configuration are the most > > common, and the two conditional types implemented are likely to be used in > > a variety of ways across the stacks, but it would be great if these were > > treated as specific sub-types of the condition, to make future conditions > > easier to add. > > > > Can you please add Jayush Lunia to this review list? I believe he's > > looking at some stack-level refactorings, so it would be good to get his > > input as well. > > > > Thanks.
Generally I agree with the comments here. We should categorize the type of condition too by adding condition-type property (i.e. <condition-type>config</condition-type>). - Jayush ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/51815/#review149205 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Sept. 16, 2016, 4:57 p.m., Amruta Borkar wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/51815/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Sept. 16, 2016, 4:57 p.m.) > > > Review request for Ambari, Shantanu Mundkur, Di Li, Jayush Luniya, Juanjo > Marron, Laszlo Puskas, and Robert Nettleton. > > > Bugs: AMBARI-18355 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AMBARI-18355 > > > Repository: ambari > > > Description > ------- > > Currently stack definitions do not list conditional dependencies, adding > those to the stack definitions would make it easy to validate errors in case > of blueprint deployment. Please refer to document attached to Jira > > > Diffs > ----- > > > ambari-server/src/main/java/org/apache/ambari/server/state/DependencyConditionInfo.java > PRE-CREATION > > ambari-server/src/main/java/org/apache/ambari/server/state/DependencyInfo.java > e3db662 > > ambari-server/src/main/java/org/apache/ambari/server/topology/BlueprintValidatorImpl.java > a5f33ff > > ambari-server/src/main/resources/common-services/HDFS/2.1.0.2.0/metainfo.xml > 65d166a > > ambari-server/src/test/java/org/apache/ambari/server/topology/BlueprintValidatorImplTest.java > b1de8ef > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/51815/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Written Junit test cases. Perfomred manual testing to check the Namenode HA > component dependency. Was able to proceed with the installation for valid > blueprint. and got validation error message while registering blueprint when > the Blueprint did not satisfy the conditional dependencies. > > > Thanks, > > Amruta Borkar > >
