Skip to content

Handle -1 gc_threshold settings explicitly #54546

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

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Apr 1, 2020

Conversation

gwbrown
Copy link
Contributor

@gwbrown gwbrown commented Mar 31, 2020

Because -1 is technically a valid TimeValue (as a sentinel value), that is now
explicitly checked for when validating gc_thresholds. The tests are also
adjusted to test this case separately from other negative values.

Follow-up to #53913
Fixes #54485

Because -1 is technically a valid TimeValue (as a sentinel value), that is now
explicitly checked for when validating gc_thresholds. The tests are also
adjusted to test this case separately from other negative values.
@elasticmachine
Copy link
Collaborator

Pinging @elastic/es-core-infra (:Core/Infra/Core)

Copy link
Member

@rjernst rjernst left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@gwbrown gwbrown merged commit c9de5b1 into elastic:master Apr 1, 2020
gwbrown added a commit to gwbrown/elasticsearch that referenced this pull request Apr 1, 2020
Because -1 is technically a valid TimeValue (as a sentinel value), that is now
explicitly checked for when validating gc_thresholds. The tests are also
adjusted to test this case separately from other negative values.
gwbrown added a commit to gwbrown/elasticsearch that referenced this pull request Apr 1, 2020
Because -1 is technically a valid TimeValue (as a sentinel value), that is now
explicitly checked for when validating gc_thresholds. The tests are also
adjusted to test this case separately from other negative values.
gwbrown added a commit to gwbrown/elasticsearch that referenced this pull request Apr 1, 2020
Because -1 is technically a valid TimeValue (as a sentinel value), that is now
explicitly checked for when validating gc_thresholds. The tests are also
adjusted to test this case separately from other negative values.
gwbrown added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 1, 2020
Because -1 is technically a valid TimeValue (as a sentinel value), that is now
explicitly checked for when validating gc_thresholds. The tests are also
adjusted to test this case separately from other negative values.
gwbrown added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 1, 2020
Because -1 is technically a valid TimeValue (as a sentinel value), that is now
explicitly checked for when validating gc_thresholds. The tests are also
adjusted to test this case separately from other negative values.
gwbrown added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 1, 2020
Because -1 is technically a valid TimeValue (as a sentinel value), that is now
explicitly checked for when validating gc_thresholds. The tests are also
adjusted to test this case separately from other negative values.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[CI] JvmGcMonitorServiceSettingsTests.testNegativeSetting fails on CI
4 participants