> On June 2, 2017, 9:08 a.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote:
> > src/tests/reservation_endpoints_tests.cpp
> > Lines 640-641 (original)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/58951/diff/2/?file=1734443#file1734443line659>
> >
> >     This looks like a valuable check. Do we have another test that ensures 
> > a similar thing?
> 
> Benjamin Bannier wrote:
>     The general resource math of resource recovery is e.g., test here, 
> https://github.com/apache/mesos/blob/7ec3269d51d7d180aa857140097c170c469d7959/src/tests/master_allocator_tests.cpp#L1717-L1761.

Thank you, Benjamin, for searching and finding it!


- Alexander


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/58951/#review176742
-----------------------------------------------------------


On June 6, 2017, 12:38 p.m., Benjamin Bannier wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/58951/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated June 6, 2017, 12:38 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Alexander Rukletsov and Benjamin Mahler.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-7388
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-7388
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> The tests in the case often require an agent ID. To obtain the ID they
> were using a mock allocator to grab agent ID, but not other operations
> with the allocator were performed.
> 
> Instead we now just capture the SlaveRegisteredMessage in order to
> learn an agent's ID.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/tests/reservation_endpoints_tests.cpp 
> 505c5421e95378177a7a09f462e5625ffa75cd37 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/58951/diff/3/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> `make check`, also in repetition.
> 
> While this patch is part of this series since later patches depend on it, it 
> could be commited independently.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Benjamin Bannier
> 
>

Reply via email to