> On June 9, 2017, 2:23 a.m., Neil Conway wrote:
> > src/tests/reservation_tests.cpp
> > Lines 2401 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/58510/diff/1/?file=1693725#file1693725line2401>
> >
> >     I have various minor gripes about how this test is written :)
> >     
> >     When the clock is paused, I think it is better to first advance the 
> > clock to ensure the agent has registered. Then register the framework; we 
> > should then get an offer at precisely that point (w/o waiting for batch 
> > alloc). As written, advancing the clock for the batch alloc is actually 
> > what triggers the agent to register, which is fragile (what if agent 
> > registration backoff is > batch alloc interval?).
> >     
> >     i.e., I'd adjust the test as follows: 
> > https://gist.github.com/neilconway/2f11988222cd8fb9583905624cb4ddd5

Thank you for great advice! Although I removed this test per @bmahler's 
comment, I'm sure this will help me in the future :)


- Jay


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/58510/#review177346
-----------------------------------------------------------


On April 18, 2017, 11:45 p.m., Jay Guo wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/58510/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated April 18, 2017, 11:45 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos and Michael Park.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-7149
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-7149
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Added two tests for hierarchical reservation.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/tests/hierarchical_allocator_tests.cpp 
> 33e7b455f8664858eb4f03727b076a10c80cd6e0 
>   src/tests/reservation_tests.cpp 4504831d77c1bfcf5f2ddf6d28cd45dea2c421ad 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/58510/diff/1/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jay Guo
> 
>

Reply via email to