Re: Review Request 34361: converted hard-coded strings to consts

[Niklas Nielsen <ni...@qni.dk>]

> On June 9, 2015, 6:25 p.m., Ben Mahler wrote:
> > src/tests/master_tests.cpp, lines 3031-3034
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/34361/diff/3/?file=971359#file971359line3031>
> >
> >     Why bother with all this? Why not just have `"key1"`, `"value1"`, `"key2"`, `"value2"` inlined appropriately throughout these tests. Very straightforward to read.
> 
> Colin Williams wrote:
>     I think the issue with the changes remaining is that the test depends on the same value occurring in several places. By consolidating to a variable it's no longer possible for these values to get out of sync.
> 
> Niklas Nielsen wrote:
>     Colin: exactly
>     
>     Ben: We have label tests three places; in the master, slave and in the modules and they use the same "foo", "bar", "baz", "qux" key value pairs.
>     The idea was to centralize them, so they don't get out of date and to avoid code duplication.
>     
>     Does that make sense?
> 
> Ben Mahler wrote:
>     Well, then let's just keep it simple and get rid of these special strings by just making the tests use "key1", "value1", "key2", "value2", etc.
>     
>     I'm not following your code duplication point, this introduces more code (now there are additional global constants, which we like to avoid if unnecessary).
>     
>     Also, each test is ideally independent, why does the master's test for labels affect the slave's test for labels? Let's say I need a test with 5 labels, you want to have 5x2=10 global constants to address this?
> 
> Niklas Nielsen wrote:
>     Try to see how testLabelKey and testLabelValue was used previously and "foo", "bar", "qux" was used on others and I created this ticket to unify the way we do this, along with seeing these key value pair being created in the slave and master tests.
>     
>     Dispite the current patch, I do think we can simply and unify the test label creation. Maybe create a CREATE_LABEL_PAIR(id) to make it more obvious which key pairs are being tested. The comments in the test code need to carry a bunch of context, to make sense out of the label transformations (especially across the library border for the hooks tests).
>     
>     This is all in spirit of reducing the tech debt we introduced. We are on the same page on not introducing more lines/key pairs than before. Let us iterate on this and get back to you.
> 
> Colin Williams wrote:
>     Ben: I'm more in agreement with your sentiment, I'm not sure I see the point of unifying label names into a centralized variable that aren't at all related.
>     
>     Niklas: I was a little confused by the original task description, so I thought a sample patch would be a good discussion point. I don't entirely understand the tech debt you're trying to solve. For example, it seems like you're asking to have some constants defined somewhere that are used by both master_test and slave_test, but the the similarities between these two only seem incidental. I'm concerned that creating something like CREATE_LABEL_PAIR(id) would instead obfuscate the intent of the code.
> 
> Niklas Nielsen wrote:
>     Okay - thinking about this; I am on board with "key1", "value1" etc.
>     
>     Colin: the tech debt is that we have some inlined constants (like "foo", "bar", etc) and some which are constants (which have to be kept in sync between hooks modules and test body).
>     The idea was to unify the way we name the key value pairs.
>     
>     Do you want to update this ticket to reflect this, or come with a new patch set which tackles streaming the two?
> 
> Niklas Nielsen wrote:
>     Ping :)
> 
> Colin Williams wrote:
>     Sorry, my day job's been really all-consuming the last few days. I was planning to update the ticket.
> 
> Colin Williams wrote:
>     Ticket updated

Colin; thanks! should we keep this patch then, or will you be providing a new one?


- Niklas


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/34361/#review87331
-----------------------------------------------------------


On June 8, 2015, 12:05 p.m., Colin Williams wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/34361/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated June 8, 2015, 12:05 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos and Niklas Nielsen.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-2637
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2637
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> converted hard-coded strings to consts
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/tests/hook_tests.cpp 3ffde6d 
>   src/tests/master_tests.cpp ba3858f 
>   src/tests/slave_tests.cpp acae497 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/34361/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Colin Williams
> 
>