----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/65395/#review196728 -----------------------------------------------------------
src/checks/checker.hpp Lines 92-93 (original), 62-63 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/65395/#comment276538> Omg were we using Doxygen once upon a time? src/checks/checker.hpp Lines 123-124 (original), 90-91 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/65395/#comment276539> Oh yeah, that's way cleaner. src/checks/checker.cpp Lines 127 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/65395/#comment276542> Nit: Unfortunately, while I am a big fan of `auto`, the Mesos rule on this is to use it only when the type is immediately specified on the right-hand-side. In this case, the type is deduced from the return type of a function elsewhere in the file, so it should be specified in full on the left-hand-side here. src/checks/checker_process.hpp Lines 43-45 (original), 47-49 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/65395/#comment276543> We probably need to relocate this comment as we no longer pass the scheme here. src/checks/checker_process.hpp Lines 143-148 (original) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/65395/#comment276548> Leaving a note to make sure this comment was kept around. src/checks/checker_process.cpp Lines 241-245 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/65395/#comment276549> I checked this against the visitors below, it checks out. src/checks/checker_process.cpp Lines 253 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/65395/#comment276544> s/E,F/E, F/g (See, I read the whole comment block!) Hm, I am left wondering what the `/-` means for the `Nested` row. I assume that it means "not a thing on Windows", but we should probably exlicitly state it. src/checks/checker_process.cpp Lines 258-271 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/65395/#comment276545> I'm not generally a fan of capture-automatically semantics. I'm left wondering what exactly we're capturing by copy here, if anything (`this` maybe?). src/checks/checker_process.cpp Lines 415 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/65395/#comment276546> Is this even reachable? src/checks/checker_process.cpp Lines 435 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/65395/#comment276547> Ditto above (sorry). Though that type is awful enough, perhaps we want to make an exception. src/checks/checker_process.cpp Lines 450-451 (original), 510-511 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/65395/#comment276550> ;) src/checks/checker_process.cpp Lines 807 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/65395/#comment276551> IIRC this is a struct, should this be a const-ref? src/checks/checker_process.cpp Lines 824-825 (original), 908-909 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/65395/#comment276552> Not something to fix in this chain, but dang we need a proper URI construction class. src/checks/health_checker.cpp Lines 187-214 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/65395/#comment276553> Where else did I read this code... src/docker/executor.cpp Lines 658-664 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/65395/#comment276554> Nit: Style-wise, can we brace-construct this whole struct? (Should we? Could it become const-qualified if we did?) - Andrew Schwartzmeyer On Jan. 30, 2018, 2:06 a.m., Akash Gupta wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/65395/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Jan. 30, 2018, 2:06 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Alexander Rukletsov, Andrew Schwartzmeyer, and > Gaston Kleiman. > > > Bugs: MESOS-8498 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-8498 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Refactored health check code to separate the logic for each check > type and runtime (Plain/Docker/Nested). Now the matrix of different > possiblilites is cleanly enumerated, making it easier to add > future health checks, such as the ones for Windows. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/checks/checker.hpp 93502270f31e80c5f7c94b5b456625e9cdea1837 > src/checks/checker.cpp fff0aac504b4283a210f936e00c977fa60d88b3d > src/checks/checker_process.hpp 510f3b2e6e689faaf26595214ce377c2b5518f28 > src/checks/checker_process.cpp ddb197b8cc2c503fef5ae20af32f5881fff9833f > src/checks/health_checker.hpp 019fbd791f250ecc28ff59d779f90e7ccbf0c685 > src/checks/health_checker.cpp eaf9a18817eeeff7c29c7a4b9d1b183f398760a3 > src/docker/executor.cpp e4c53d558e414e50b1c429fba8e31e504c63744a > src/launcher/default_executor.cpp 4a619859095cc2d30f4806813f64a2e48c83b3ea > src/launcher/executor.cpp 050f5a057f360873e2b4738b126289bcd1bd0c7f > > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/65395/diff/2/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > Akash Gupta > >
