> On Jan. 28, 2017, 1:17 a.m., Vinod Kone wrote: > > src/checks/health_checker.cpp, lines 426-429 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/55901/diff/1/?file=1613998#file1613998line426> > > > > why a `.repair()` here? > > Gastón Kleiman wrote: > To fail the future/check with a nice descriptive message that will later > be logged. > > Vinod Kone wrote: > The message returned by `http::connect` should be good enough? Do we use > this pattern elsewhere esp. with connect? Most uses of repair I have seen in > the code base, transform the future not really to add extra logging > information. > > Alexander Rukletsov wrote: > We use `.repair` for adjusting the message or changing the error type, > which is technically the same. Here are some examples from the code: > > https://github.com/apache/mesos/blob/25f4feae487d53a701adb787fd8a2e5f6166b789/3rdparty/libprocess/src/http.cpp#L1766-L1769 > > https://github.com/apache/mesos/blob/25f4feae487d53a701adb787fd8a2e5f6166b789/src/master/http.cpp#L4695-L4697 > > https://github.com/apache/mesos/blob/25f4feae487d53a701adb787fd8a2e5f6166b789/src/slave/containerizer/mesos/io/switchboard.cpp#L1632-L1638 > > Now, the question is whether connection failure message is good enough? > Gastón, could you trigger a failure path and check what error message will be > returned? > > Gastón Kleiman wrote: > This is how it looks like with the repair: > > ``` > W0207 10:42:19.659122 9361 health_checker.cpp:314] Health check failed 1 > times consecutively: COMMAND health check failed: Unable to establish > connection with the agent: Failed to connect to 192.99.40.208:31338: > Connection refused > ``` > > Without the repair it would look like this: > > ``` > W0207 10:42:19.659122 9361 health_checker.cpp:314] Health check failed 1 > times consecutively: COMMAND health check failed: Failed to connect to > 192.99.40.208:31338: Connection refused > ```
I'd vote for keeping `.repair`. - Alexander ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/55901/#review163363 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Feb. 8, 2017, 1:27 p.m., Gastón Kleiman wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/55901/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Feb. 8, 2017, 1:27 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 e63cf153831088851863d0956455a024e9bc172a > src/tests/health_check_tests.cpp 7b6a803a28b2e4f6c27e9a0c4f668350ec2d5a81 > > 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 > >
