----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/55901/#review164117 -----------------------------------------------------------
src/checks/health_checker.hpp (line 94) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/55901/#comment235698> Could you please add a todo here saying this will go away and link a jira ticket? src/checks/health_checker.hpp (line 207) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/55901/#comment235702> How about calling it `commandCheckViaAgent`? src/checks/health_checker.cpp (line 130) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/55901/#comment235700> s/createRequest/createV1AgentAPIRequest? remove `inline` This looks like a utility function not really related to the health checker library. Maybe put it into "src/slave/api_utils.{hpp|cpp}"? src/checks/health_checker.cpp (lines 146 - 170) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/55901/#comment235701> What is the value of using these helpers? I'd say having `connection.send(createRequest(url, call), false);` is clearer and self explanatory rather than `post(connection, url, call)`. And you don't need any comments then : ) src/checks/health_checker.cpp (line 224) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/55901/#comment235699> You can use `{}` instead. src/checks/health_checker.cpp (lines 434 - 436) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/55901/#comment235703> Use `CHECK_SOME` instead. src/checks/health_checker.cpp (lines 456 - 482) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/55901/#comment235697> Could you please link a JIRA here? src/checks/health_checker.cpp (line 593) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/55901/#comment235704> Please keep the order of the definitions in sync with the order of declarations. src/checks/health_checker.cpp (line 746) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/55901/#comment235705> Let's pull this (together with another below) into a separate patch. src/tests/health_check_tests.cpp (line 2107) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/55901/#comment235706> Why not spelling out `cmd`? src/tests/health_check_tests.cpp (lines 2118 - 2119) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/55901/#comment235707> Why do we need to expilictly create `containerizer`? src/tests/health_check_tests.cpp (lines 2154 - 2155) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/55901/#comment235708> Formatting. Also it is probably a good idea to explicitly say you don't care about further updates. src/tests/health_check_tests.cpp (lines 2157 - 2161) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/55901/#comment235709> 1. I think you can also check that task's env vars are available in the health check -> pass exit status in the task's command. 2. Let's avoid using obscure `populateTasks()` here. We'll get rid of it altogether in the nearest future. src/tests/health_check_tests.cpp (lines 2185 - 2186) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/55901/#comment235710> check that `healthy` is set please. - Alexander Rukletsov On Feb. 2, 2017, 5:02 p.m., Gastón Kleiman wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/55901/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Feb. 2, 2017, 5:02 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Alexander Rukletsov, Anand Mazumdar, haosdent > huang, and Vinod Kone. > > > Bugs: MESOS-6280 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-6280 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Added support for command health checks to the default executor. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/checks/health_checker.hpp 95da1ff7dd6b222a93076633eb3757ec9aa43cf6 > src/checks/health_checker.cpp 58380dc18896f659aa9c4fb4bb567a55bba97f6b > src/launcher/default_executor.cpp 97eee05cac8cb1f62d43e2aecc08a8e54e49eac3 > src/tests/health_check_tests.cpp 8418cd91484fd26734de16255b37f3ebf574f5eb > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/55901/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Introduced a new test: `HealthCheckTest.DefaultExecutorCmdHealthCheck`. It > passes on Linux, but not on macOS. > > > Thanks, > > Gastón Kleiman > >
