You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to reviews@aurora.apache.org by Bill Farner <wf...@apache.org> on 2014/10/28 01:44:09 UTC
Review Request 27258: Make job key backfilling more robust.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/27258/
-----------------------------------------------------------
Review request for Aurora and Maxim Khutornenko.
Bugs: AURORA-897
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-897
Repository: aurora
Description
-------
User encountered a JobKey inside a task with all null fields, which led to us skipping the backfill operation. Checking for a job key that exists and is valid should cover some more cases.
Diffs
-----
src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/storage/StorageBackfill.java 3cadbaf2ee99d918b284a6a8216f499ed1ae6875
src/test/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/storage/StorageBackfillTest.java cf9b0bd025f987b28c9cb330620e6a6f66efda1d
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/27258/diff/
Testing
-------
Added a test case for this issue.
Thanks,
Bill Farner
Re: Review Request 27258: Make job key backfilling more robust.
Posted by Maxim Khutornenko <ma...@apache.org>.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/27258/#review58739
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Maxim Khutornenko
On Oct. 28, 2014, 12:44 a.m., Bill Farner wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/27258/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated Oct. 28, 2014, 12:44 a.m.)
>
>
> Review request for Aurora and Maxim Khutornenko.
>
>
> Bugs: AURORA-897
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-897
>
>
> Repository: aurora
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> User encountered a JobKey inside a task with all null fields, which led to us skipping the backfill operation. Checking for a job key that exists and is valid should cover some more cases.
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/storage/StorageBackfill.java 3cadbaf2ee99d918b284a6a8216f499ed1ae6875
> src/test/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/storage/StorageBackfillTest.java cf9b0bd025f987b28c9cb330620e6a6f66efda1d
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/27258/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> Added a test case for this issue.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill Farner
>
>
Re: Review Request 27258: Make job key backfilling more robust.
Posted by Aurora ReviewBot <wf...@apache.org>.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/27258/#review58740
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ship it!
Master (82dd7d1) is green with this patch.
./build-support/jenkins/build.sh
- Aurora ReviewBot
On Oct. 28, 2014, 12:44 a.m., Bill Farner wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/27258/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated Oct. 28, 2014, 12:44 a.m.)
>
>
> Review request for Aurora and Maxim Khutornenko.
>
>
> Bugs: AURORA-897
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-897
>
>
> Repository: aurora
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> User encountered a JobKey inside a task with all null fields, which led to us skipping the backfill operation. Checking for a job key that exists and is valid should cover some more cases.
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/storage/StorageBackfill.java 3cadbaf2ee99d918b284a6a8216f499ed1ae6875
> src/test/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/storage/StorageBackfillTest.java cf9b0bd025f987b28c9cb330620e6a6f66efda1d
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/27258/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> Added a test case for this issue.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill Farner
>
>