8000 fix long precondition in removeServer by kvahed · Pull Request #12080 · arangodb/arangodb · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to content

fix long precondition in removeServer #12080

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.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally 8000 send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Jul 7, 2020
Merged

fix long precondition in removeServer #12080

merged 5 commits into from
Jul 7, 2020

Conversation

kvahed
Copy link
Contributor
@kvahed kvahed commented Jul 1, 2020

Pull Request Guidelines

Pull requests are an essential collaborative tool for modern software development.

The below list is intended to help you figure out whether your code is ready to be reviewed
and merged into ArangoDB. The overarching goal is to:

  • Reduce the amount of recurring defects
  • Reduce the impact to the other developer’s time and energy spent on defects in your code
  • Increase the overall autonomy and productivity of individual developers

Acceptance Checklist

The below list is not exhaustive, think thoroughly whether the provided information is sufficient.
Remove options that do not apply

Scope & Purpose

(Can you describe what functional change your PR is trying to effect?)

  • Bug-Fix for devel-branch (i.e. no need for backports?)
  • Bug-Fix for a released version (did you remember to port this to all relevant release branches?)
  • Strictly new functionality (i.e. a new feature / new option, no need for porting)
  • The behavior in this PR can be (and was) manually tested (support / qa / customers can test it)
  • The behavior change can be verified via automatic tests

Related Information

(Please reference tickets / specification etc )

  • There is a GitHub Issue reported by a Community User:
  • There is an internal planning ticket:
  • There is a JIRA Ticket number (In case a customer was affected / involved):
  • There is a design document:

Testing & Verification

(Please pick either of the following options)

This change is a trivial rework / code cleanup without any test coverage.

(or)

This change is already covered by existing tests, such as (please describe tests).

(or)

This PR adds tests that were used to verify all changes:

  • Added Regression Tests (Only for bug-fixes)
  • Added new C++ Unit Tests (Either GoogleTest or Catch-Test)
    • Did you add tests for a new RestHandler subclass ?
    • Did you add new mocks of underlying code layers to be able to verify your functionality ?
    • ...
  • Added new integration tests (i.e. in shell_server / shell_server_aql)
  • Added new resilience tests (only if the feature is impacted by failovers)

Additionally:

  • There are tests in an external testing repository (i.e. node-resilience tests, chaos tests)
  • I ensured this code runs with ASan / TSan or other static verification tools

(Include link to Jenkins run etc)

Think about whether the new code you added is modular enough to be
easily testable by unit tests written with GTest / Catch. It is not good if your feature is so interconnected
that it prevents other people from writing their own unit gests. It should be possible
to use your code in future without extensively mocking your classes.
A bad example that required some extensive effort would be the storage engine API.

Documentation

All new Features should be accompanied by corresponding documentation.
Bugs and features should furthermore be documented in the changelog so that
developers and users have a concise overview.

  • Added a Changelog Entry (referencing the corresponding public or internal issue number)
  • Added entry to Release Notes
  • Added a new section in the Manual
  • Added a new section in the HTTP API
  • Added Swagger examples for the HTTP API
  • Updated license information in LICENSES-OTHER-COMPONENTS.md for 3rd party libraries

CLA Note

Please note that for legal reasons we require you to sign the Contributor Agreement
before we can accept your pull requests.

@kvahed kvahed added the 1 Bug label Jul 1, 2020
@kvahed kvahed added this to the 3.6.5 milestone Jul 1, 2020
@kvahed kvahed requested a review from neunhoef July 1, 2020 13:42
@kvahed kvahed self-assigned this Jul 1, 2020
@kvahed
Copy link
Contributor Author
kvahed commented Jul 1, 2020

image

neunhoef
neunhoef approved these changes Jul 7, 2020
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member
@neunhoef neunhoef left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@KVS85 KVS85 merged commit c900676 into 3.6 Jul 7, 2020
@KVS85 KVS85 deleted the bug-fix-3.6/remove-server-ultra-precs branch July 7, 2020 17:33
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@neunhoef neunhoef neunhoef approved these changes

Assignees

@kvahed kvahed

Labels
1 Bug
Projects
None yet
Milestone
3.6.5
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
367E 3 participants
@kvahed @neunhoef @KVS85
0