> On Aug. 21, 2017, 1:34 p.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote: > > src/checks/checker_process.cpp > > Lines 916-919 (original), 916-919 (patched) > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/61766/diff/1/?file=1800336#file1800336line916> > > > > Looking at this, I'm not sure we should return a failure here: `stderr` > > is not critical for getting the HTTP code, so maybe log warning here? This > > is also consistent with what you now do for nested command checks.
In the nested command check case, the logging is performed in a void function, so returning a failure is not an option. I think that returning a failure here makes sense; while stderr isn't strictly necessary to get the status code, if we hit this case something has definitely gone wrong. The failure message will be logged by the executor and will be easily accessible for debugging. - Greg ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/61766/#review183332 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Aug. 19, 2017, 12:27 a.m., Gastón Kleiman wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/61766/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Aug. 19, 2017, 12:27 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Alexander Rukletsov, Greg Mann, and Vinod Kone. > > > Bugs: MESOS-7861 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-7861 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Made the output handling of TCP and HTTP checks consistent. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/checks/checker_process.cpp 30dda0e6efca31aa6b9cd4f753f96b979717ab2e > > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/61766/diff/1/ > > > Testing > ------- > > `make tests` on GNU/Linux > > > Thanks, > > Gastón Kleiman > >
