Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Record the blocking activation in the proper map before the request is sent to the invoker. #4145

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 6, 2018

Conversation

rabbah
Copy link
Member

@rabbah rabbah commented Nov 29, 2018

As noted in #4135, the map tracking activations should be setup before the request is posted to an invoker.

I renamed some of the variables and added comments that I think are helpful.

Description

Related issue and scope

My changes affect the following components

  • API
  • Controller
  • Message Bus (e.g., Kafka)
  • Loadbalancer
  • Invoker
  • Intrinsic actions (e.g., sequences, conductors)
  • Data stores (e.g., CouchDB)
  • Tests
  • Deployment
  • CLI
  • General tooling
  • Documentation

Types of changes

  • Bug fix (generally a non-breaking change which closes an issue).
  • Enhancement or new feature (adds new functionality).
  • Breaking change (a bug fix or enhancement which changes existing behavior).

Checklist:

  • I signed an Apache CLA.
  • I reviewed the style guides and followed the recommendations (Travis CI will check :).
  • I added tests to cover my changes.
  • My changes require further changes to the documentation.
  • I updated the documentation where necessary.

Copy link
Contributor

@cbickel cbickel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks a lot for making the change to fill the map before the message is sent to the invoker. I totally missed that on my review.

@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Dec 4, 2018

Codecov Report

Merging #4145 into master will increase coverage by 20.65%.
The diff coverage is 90%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #4145       +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage   60.61%   81.26%   +20.65%     
===========================================
  Files         151      151               
  Lines        7277     7277               
  Branches      466      466               
===========================================
+ Hits         4411     5914     +1503     
+ Misses       2866     1363     -1503
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
...e/loadBalancer/ShardingContainerPoolBalancer.scala 85.09% <90%> (+5.28%) ⬆️
...whisk/connector/kafka/KafkaConsumerConnector.scala 59.7% <0%> (-1.5%) ⬇️
...e/openwhisk/core/containerpool/ContainerPool.scala 92.62% <0%> (+1.63%) ⬆️
.../scala/org/apache/openwhisk/core/entity/Exec.scala 85% <0%> (+1.66%) ⬆️
.../org/apache/openwhisk/core/entity/EntityPath.scala 100% <0%> (+1.88%) ⬆️
...a/org/apache/openwhisk/core/entity/Parameter.scala 95.45% <0%> (+2.27%) ⬆️
.../org/apache/openwhisk/http/PoolingRestClient.scala 90% <0%> (+3.33%) ⬆️
...hisk/core/controller/actions/SequenceActions.scala 92.1% <0%> (+3.5%) ⬆️
...tainerpool/docker/DockerClientWithFileAccess.scala 96% <0%> (+4%) ⬆️
...rg/apache/openwhisk/core/entity/ExecManifest.scala 97.87% <0%> (+4.25%) ⬆️
... and 87 more

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 2bf2ace...c383afc. Read the comment docs.

Copy link
Contributor

@cbickel cbickel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@cbickel cbickel merged commit 54a2f22 into apache:master Dec 6, 2018
@rabbah rabbah deleted the pr-4135 branch February 8, 2019 02:28
BillZong pushed a commit to BillZong/openwhisk that referenced this pull request Nov 18, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
loadbalancer review Review for this PR has been requested and yet needs to be done.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants