> On Aug. 5, 2015, 4:16 a.m., Artem Harutyunyan wrote: > > src/tests/containerizer/isolator_tests.cpp, line 1269 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/36979/diff/1/?file=1026037#file1026037line1269> > > > > You are right that the awk did not actually seem to accomplish anything > > meaningful here.
my major concern is that these are ROOT Container tests that won't be run on OSX (and won't be run often either) - so wanted to mark it, as if the test fails we know who to blame (me!) I'll double check on an Ubuntu server too. > On Aug. 5, 2015, 4:16 a.m., Artem Harutyunyan wrote: > > src/tests/containerizer/port_mapping_tests.cpp, lines 971-974 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/36979/diff/1/?file=1026038#file1026038line971> > > > > Another illustration of why a tuple return type might be a better > > option for os::shell() :-) > > > > But regardless, I'd change this code to something more suggestive (it's > > a test case after all), or at least would add a comment that clarifies the > > intention. Added a comment, that was sorely needed, you're right! As for the tuple, that's what `process::Subprocess` will be for. We assume that `os::shell` usage is when one wants to just run a command and only cares: did it succeed? (this was actually the **only** place in the code base where anyone cared about the exit code, believe it or not). > On Aug. 5, 2015, 4:16 a.m., Artem Harutyunyan wrote: > > src/tests/containerizer/port_mapping_tests.cpp, line 986 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/36979/diff/1/?file=1026038#file1026038line986> > > > > ditto. > > + extra newline. Having looked at both tests, I was being unnecessarily pedantic IMO: checking for the error code (256) to be present in the error string seems to me to be more than sufficient (and self-explanatory too - but added a comment all the same). What thinks you? - Marco ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/36979/#review94177 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Aug. 5, 2015, 12:55 a.m., Marco Massenzio wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/36979/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Aug. 5, 2015, 12:55 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman and Artem Harutyunyan. > > > Bugs: MESOS-3142 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-3142 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Updating all references to os::shell > For more details see MESOS-3142. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/hdfs/hdfs.hpp a070c3200f0a0ac48ec86451749c7faf10c7f6a7 > src/master/main.cpp e05a472b86170eb26df26aaa4b65437fcdd413ce > src/slave/containerizer/isolators/network/port_mapping.cpp > 3f6e9df8711995d0dd3903c6170fdd5ad61aac5a > src/tests/containerizer/isolator_tests.cpp > ff6e2b7e190a58a4809d6e71addb15dabe418e17 > src/tests/containerizer/port_mapping_tests.cpp > 4bee74acba2b1472c80cabbc9d0384bd04c543aa > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/36979/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > *Note*: this patch fixes breakages introduce by the refactoring in: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/36978 > > > Thanks, > > Marco Massenzio > >
