mesos-reviews mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Schwartzmeyer <and...@schwartzmeyer.com>
Subject Re: Review Request 65395: Refactored health checks to cleanly separate each different check.
Date Fri, 02 Feb 2018 21:27:55 GMT

-----------------------------------------------------------
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
> 
>


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message