feature: add wait client command for pouch #1333

xiechengsheng · 2018-05-16T02:53:44Z

Ⅰ. Describe what this PR did

Add wait client command for pouch

Ⅱ. Does this pull request fix one issue?

fixes little part of #238

Ⅲ. Describe how you did it

Ⅳ. Describe how to verify it

$ pouch ps
Name   ID       Status         Created         Image                                            Runtime
foo    f6717e   Up 2 seconds   3 seconds ago   registry.hub.docker.com/library/busybox:latest   runc
$ pouch stop foo
$ pouch ps -a
Name   ID       Status                 Created         Image                                            Runtime
foo    f6717e   Stopped (0) 1 minute   2 minutes ago   registry.hub.docker.com/library/busybox:latest   runc
$ pouch wait foo
0

Add more test codes are in test/cli_wait_test.go and test/api_container_wait_test.go

Ⅴ. Special notes for reviews

HusterWan · 2018-05-16T03:09:03Z

fmt
/usr/local/go/bin/gofmt
test/cli_wait_test.go
please format Go code with 'gofmt -s -w'
Makefile:42: recipe for target 'fmt' failed
make: *** [fmt] Error 1
Exited with code 2

CI failed, Please resolve it first, Thanks a lot!!

xiechengsheng · 2018-05-16T03:11:55Z

@HusterWan Oh, I forget to check the code format, thanks for your reply.

codecov-io · 2018-05-16T07:05:46Z

Codecov Report

Merging #1333 into master will increase coverage by 0.06%.
The diff coverage is 47.61%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1333      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   38.72%   38.79%   +0.06%     
==========================================
  Files         254      256       +2     
  Lines       16724    16808      +84     
==========================================
+ Hits         6477     6520      +43     
- Misses       9421     9459      +38     
- Partials      826      829       +3

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
cli/wait.go	`0% <0%> (ø)`
cli/main.go	`0% <0%> (ø)`	⬆️
apis/server/router.go	`91.3% <100%> (+0.06%)`	⬆️
apis/server/container_bridge.go	`82.8% <100%> (+0.47%)`	⬆️
client/container_wait.go	`100% <100%> (ø)`
daemon/mgr/container_types.go	`76.81% <100%> (+0.69%)`	⬆️
ctrd/container.go	`50.9% <68.42%> (+2.84%)`	⬆️
daemon/mgr/container.go	`49.7% <71.42%> (ø)`	⬆️
daemon/containerio/container_io.go	`59.74% <0%> (-1.3%)`	⬇️
... and 5 more

Letty5411 · 2018-05-17T05:26:33Z

cli/wait.go

+	apiClient := wait.cli.Client()
+
+	var errs []string
+	for _, name := range args {


Could you also do some check for the args

OK, I use errs = append(errs, err.Error()) to show client error messages.

Letty5411 · 2018-05-17T05:31:27Z

test/cli_wait_test.go

+	command.PouchRun("run", "-d", "--name", name, busyboxImage, "sh", "-c", "true").Assert(c, icmd.Success)
+	defer DelContainerForceMultyTime(c, name)
+
+	output := command.PouchRun("wait", name).Stdout()


I would prefer change this code to:

res := command.PouchRun("wait", name) res. Assert(c, icmd.Success) output := res.Stdout()

In this way, we could get more info if pouch wait failed.

OK, Thanks for your apply~

xiechengsheng · 2018-05-20T08:08:12Z

Could anyone else help to review this pr? Thanks a lot. 😆

fuweid

Hi @xiechengsheng

I have commented for your change. Please take a look. Thanks

fuweid · 2018-05-21T01:43:53Z

apis/swagger.yml

@@ -3428,3 +3451,4 @@ responses:
    description: An unexpected server error occurred.
    schema:
      $ref: "#/definitions/Error"
+


Please Remove the blank line at the ending of file

fuweid · 2018-05-21T02:38:49Z

ctrd/container.go

@@ -500,3 +500,27 @@ func (c *Client) ResizeContainer(ctx context.Context, id string, opts types.Resi

 	return pack.task.Resize(ctx, uint32(opts.Height), uint32(opts.Width))
 }
+
+// WaitContainer waits until container's status is stopped.
+func (c *Client) WaitContainer(ctx context.Context, id string, timeout time.Duration) (int64, error) {


The waitContainer API doesn't require the timeout param as you mentioned in the swagger.yml.

I think we can remove the timeout here so that it can make wait word clear. WDYT?

Yes we could do this, the timeout is not used in the next codes.

fuweid · 2018-05-21T02:43:52Z

apis/swagger.yml

+              StatusCode:
+                description: "Exit code of the container"
+                type: "integer"
+                x-nullable: false


Since the ProbeContainer maybe return the unexpected error, I think we should add the error in the response.

@fuweid Emmm, IMO, I don't think ProbeContainer error should appear in HTTP response. The codes in ctrd/container.go WaitContainer() function show that if ProbeContainer error occurs, the function will return -1(wrong exit code) and show client the ProbeContainer error message as many other error cases do; And function apis/server/container_bridge.go waitContainer returns the error directly so that the client can see the error message. If the code can run to EncodeResponse(...), the container must have exited successfully. So what's your opinion?

So, the error means 500? The error is caused by the container, not the server. The waitContainer API doesn't meets any error during the waiting. That is why that I suggest to use the error in the response. WDYT?

OK, I'll add it.

fuweid · 2018-05-21T02:52:15Z

test/api_container_wait_test.go

+
+	CreateBusyboxContainerOk(c, cname)
+	StartContainerOk(c, cname)
+	StopContainerOk(c, cname)


Can we add some cases about running container? I think the common case is using for the running container

fuweid · 2018-05-21T02:54:47Z

test/cli_wait_test.go

+	case status := <-chWait:
+		c.Assert(status, check.Equals, fmt.Sprintf("%s\n", "0"))
+	case <-time.After(2 * time.Second):
+		c.Errorf("timeout waiting for `docker wait` to exit")


No docker wait, is pouch wait

I feel so sorry, this test file is locally referred to docker tests. A little bit embarrassed. 😂

fuweid · 2018-05-21T02:55:04Z

test/cli_wait_test.go

+	case status := <-chWait:
+		c.Assert(status, check.Equals, fmt.Sprintf("%s\n", "99"))
+	case <-time.After(2 * time.Second):
+		c.Errorf("timeout waiting for `docker wait` to exit")


No docker wait, is pouch wait

fuweid · 2018-05-21T03:23:08Z

apis/server/router.go

@@ -53,6 +53,7 @@ func initRoute(s *Server) http.Handler {
 	s.addRoute(r, http.MethodGet, "/containers/{name:.*}/logs", withCancelHandler(s.logsContainer))
 	s.addRoute(r, http.MethodPost, "/containers/{name:.*}/resize", s.resizeContainer)
 	s.addRoute(r, http.MethodPost, "/containers/{name:.*}/restart", s.restartContainer)
+	s.addRoute(r, http.MethodPost, "/containers/{name:.*}/wait", s.waitContainer)


One more thing, we should add the withCancelHandler to wrap the s.waitContainer, just in case that the client closes the connection without patience.

Yes, you're right~

xiechengsheng · 2018-05-21T15:32:36Z

@fuweid Thanks for your review, I have modified many codes according to your suggestions but I don't know whether the latest pr meets with your thought or not. So could you help to recheck the function ctrd/container.go WaitContainer() please? In my eyes this function codes seems to be a little bit redundant. Do you have a better way to solve this problem? Thanks in advance! 😆

fuweid · 2018-05-22T00:55:55Z

client/interface.go

@@ -39,6 +39,7 @@ type ContainerAPIClient interface {
 	ContainerTop(ctx context.Context, name string, arguments []string) (types.ContainerProcessList, error)
 	ContainerLogs(ctx context.Context, name string, options types.ContainerLogsOptions) (io.ReadCloser, error)
 	ContainerResize(ctx context.Context, name, height, width string) error
+	ContainerWait(ctx context.Context, name string) (int64, error)


I think we can use ContainerWaitOKBody as return value instead of int64, since the error is one of kind error, like 404, 505 and so on. It can make your code clean. Make senses to you?

OK, I'll try it.

fuweid · 2018-05-22T00:57:58Z

ctrd/container.go

+	ctx = leases.WithLease(ctx, wrapperCli.lease.ID())
+
+	waitExit := func() *Message {
+		return c.ProbeContainer(ctx, id, -1*time.Second)


I still have concerns about this function ProbeContainer, because it consumes the channel receiver's data. If you consumes the data here, some function will loss the data.

@fuweid You're right. But this channel ch seems only to be consumed in function ProbeContainer. And this function is called in function DestroyContainer in order to wait container exits normally. And if you don't mind, I can add additional channel waitMeg chan *Message in struct containerPack for WaitContainer function to consume specially. I don't have a more elegant way to solve it out...

Hi @xiechengsheng , please go ahead and show your code. We can find the way out. 😄

@xiechengsheng @fuweid ProbeContainer consumes the channel data, and it will push the data back again. So we will not loss the data

fuweid · 2018-05-22T00:59:50Z

Hi @xiechengsheng , thanks for contribution. But I still have some comments. Please take a look. Thanks

shaloulcy · 2018-05-23T03:59:18Z

cli/wait.go

+	baseCommand
+}
+
+// Init initialize wait command.


s/initialize/initializes/

fuweid · 2018-05-23T05:36:07Z

@xiechengsheng good job. Please update the typo and I will merge it

xiechengsheng · 2018-05-23T15:18:48Z

apis/server/container_bridge.go

+	if err != nil {
+		errMsg = err.Error()
+	}
+


@fuweid I am still concerned about the necessity of Error member in ContainerWaitOKBody structure. One one thing, this Error member value comes directly from the function Wait, and if an error occurs in function Wait, the err value in sequence status, err := s.ContainerMgr.Wait(ctx, name) is not nil, then this function waitContainer will directly return err and show error messages to client so that user can see this error; If err in sequence status, err := s.ContainerMgr.Wait(ctx, name) is nil, then member Error of structure ContainerWaitOKBody is also "" so that user won't see the error message. So in sequence Error: errMsg the errMsg must be "" if program can reach to this sequence; On the other hand, traceback to the internal function WaitContainer, we can find each path of function call will return err if an err occurs in internal function WaitContainer, and user will see the error message. So in my eyes this variable errMsg is useless. WDYT?

@xiechengsheng , when you run command and get wrong something from shell, not only you get the error code, but also the error message, like command not found: xxx. errMsg is used to tell user that hey, you got something wrong here. Does it make senses to you?

In your commit, we can define the struct to wrap error code and error message. The error message is different from the error which means the server got something.

WDYT?

Got it, thx.

fuweid · 2018-05-24T00:56:34Z

apis/server/container_bridge.go

+	}
+
+	errMsg := ""
+	if err != nil {


If the err is not nil, the following statements are unreachable.

@fuweid If err is not nil, the HTTP response API should return this err directly. If I don't return this err and just return errMsg, the HTTP response code would be 200, not 404/500.

if err != nil { return err } // if the err is not nil, the above statement will return and the following will not execute. errMsg := "" if err != nil { ... }

In my options, the s.ContainerMgr.Wait should return two vars.

One is

type ErrStatus { err error errMsg string }

Other one is error.

Make senses? 😄

OK, I'll add this.

fuweid · 2018-05-24T01:05:10Z

apis/server/container_bridge.go

+	if err != nil {
+		errMsg = err.Error()
+	}
+


@xiechengsheng , when you run command and get wrong something from shell, not only you get the error code, but also the error message, like command not found: xxx. errMsg is used to tell user that hey, you got something wrong here. Does it make senses to you?

In your commit, we can define the struct to wrap error code and error message. The error message is different from the error which means the server got something.

WDYT?

fuweid

@xiechengsheng , please take a look at my comments.

fuweid · 2018-05-24T09:11:32Z

ctrd/container.go

+			Error:      err.Error(),
+			StatusCode: -1,
+		}, fmt.Errorf("failed to get a containerd grpc client: %v", err)
+	}


If we got error from c.Get(ctx), we can keep the ContainerWaitOKBody simple and return types.ContainerWaitOKBody{}, fmt.Errorf("failed to get a containerd grpc client: %v", err).

In golang, basically we don't consume the data if error != nil

fuweid · 2018-05-24T09:15:49Z

ctrd/container.go

+	// wait for the task to exit.
+	msg = waitExit()
+
+	if err := msg.RawError(); err != nil && errtypes.IsTimeout(err) {


If the errtypes.IsTimeout(err) is true, we can return types.ContainerWaitOKBody{}, err like my last comment. WDYT?

OK, I'll fix all.

emmm... could we remove this duplicate line, since you have done it in the following statement?

fuweid · 2018-05-24T09:17:34Z

cli/wait.go

+	for _, name := range args {
+		response, err := apiClient.ContainerWait(ctx, name)
+		if err != nil {
+			errs = append(errs, "container exitcode: "+strconv.FormatInt(response.StatusCode, 10)+


I think we can just show the error without response, because in golang we don't consume the data if err != nil.

fuweid · 2018-05-24T09:17:59Z

client/container_wait.go

+	resp, err := client.post(ctx, "/containers/"+name+"/wait", nil, nil, nil)
+
+	if err != nil {
+		return types.ContainerWaitOKBody{


Just return the empty types.ContainerWaitOKBody is ok

fuweid · 2018-05-24T09:23:06Z

daemon/mgr/container.go

+func (mgr *ContainerManager) Wait(ctx context.Context, name string) (types.ContainerWaitOKBody, error) {
+	c, err := mgr.container(name)
+	if err != nil {
+		return types.ContainerWaitOKBody{


please return the error and empty types.ContainerWaitOKBody directly.

fuweid · 2018-05-24T09:26:25Z

daemon/mgr/container.go

+	// If a container status is exited or stopped, return exit code immediately.
+	if c.IsExited() || c.IsStopped() {
+		return types.ContainerWaitOKBody{
+			Error:      "",


please set the c.State.Error for Error field.

fuweid · 2018-05-24T09:27:53Z

test/api_container_wait_test.go

+		resp *http.Response
+	)
+
+	chWait := make(chan *http.Response)


tip: if we uses the wait channel for notify, we can use empty struct in golang 😄

Emmm, I think this channel is not only used for notify but also transferring data to the variable resp in the next. So I think we can't use empty struct here. WDYT?

Sorry. I misunderstand your point.

Both resp and err vars are used as closure and it seems that chWait is useless here.

But If we put the StopContainerOK in goroutine and use request.WithContext(timeoutCtx), it seems that it can be clean. The chWait is used to do notify.

WDYT?

fuweid · 2018-05-24T09:28:15Z

test/cli_wait_test.go

+		"while true; do usleep 10; done").Assert(c, icmd.Success)
+	defer DelContainerForceMultyTime(c, name)
+
+	chWait := make(chan string)


tip: please try empty struct for the wait channel

This channel type is string, can this be converted to struct{}? And this string channel's data will be transferred to variable status in the next.

fuweid

@xiechengsheng Last round review. Please take a look. Last one!

fuweid · 2018-05-25T06:06:05Z

ctrd/container.go

+	ctx = leases.WithLease(ctx, wrapperCli.lease.ID())
+
+	waitExit := func() *Message {
+		return c.ProbeContainer(ctx, id, -1*time.Second)


fuweid · 2018-05-25T06:06:18Z

ctrd/container.go

+	// wait for the task to exit.
+	msg = waitExit()
+
+	if err := msg.RawError(); err != nil && errtypes.IsTimeout(err) {


fuweid · 2018-05-25T06:06:32Z

test/api_container_wait_test.go

+
+	CreateBusyboxContainerOk(c, cname)
+	StartContainerOk(c, cname)
+	StopContainerOk(c, cname)


fuweid · 2018-05-25T06:08:03Z

ctrd/container.go

+	}
+
+	return types.ContainerWaitOKBody{
+		Error:      "",


Sorry @xiechengsheng , I miss this one. Please put the msg.RawError() to the Error field

xiechengsheng · 2018-05-26T05:21:44Z

It seems that Travis CI build always fails, the error message is:

...
No output has been received in the last 10m0s, this potentially indicates a stalled build or something wrong with the build itself.
Check the details on how to adjust your build configuration on: https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/common-build-problems/#Build-times-out-because-no-output-was-received
The build has been terminated

How to solve this?

fuweid · 2018-05-28T02:21:49Z

@xiechengsheng , could you please rebase your branch with latest master branch, since the case has updated by other PR? Thanks

xiechengsheng · 2018-05-28T02:58:53Z

@fuweid Emmmm. I update the branch and repush codes, but it is useless... Seems a testing bug?

fuweid · 2018-05-28T03:29:02Z

Hi @xiechengsheng , could you please to update the -check.v to -check.vv in hack/make.sh#271L? Therefore, we can see which case takes so long.

xiechengsheng · 2018-05-28T05:15:08Z

I'm sorry it's my code's bug......

HusterWan · 2018-05-28T07:23:34Z

Woo!! what a long discuss ! :)
@xiechengsheng @fuweid what the progress, can we finish this feature now ?

fuweid · 2018-05-28T12:09:32Z

daemon/mgr/container.go

+	// We should notice that container's meta data shouldn't be locked in wait process, otherwise waiting for
+	// a running container to stop would make other client commands which manage this container are blocked.
+	// If a container status is exited or stopped, return exit code immediately.
+	if c.IsExited() || c.IsStopped() {


How about the created container? What is the behaviour?

Yeah, the created case is very special, this concern is very considerate. So I dive into the code and find that when a new container is created and running, this map watch.containers would record container's pack info. If a container state is created, this code won't go to if statement codeblock and will run to WaitContainer function in ctrd/container.go, so this WaitContainer function will call ProbeContainer function, and ProbeContainer function will look up container pack info from the above map watch.containers. This function watch.notify() will look up map watch.containers, so when the container is just created, the look up process will fail and just return the Message{} to channel ch, so the ProbeContainer function will get Message{} channel struct and this struct's member uint 32 ExitCode would be initialized with default number 0. So when waiting a created container, the client will see the code 0, which is the same as moby.

So, can we add the case for this? Thanks

fuweid · 2018-05-29T01:30:45Z

ctrd/container.go

+	}
+
+	errMsg := ""
+	if err := msg.RawError(); err != nil && errtypes.IsTimeout(err) {


@xiechengsheng , could we use the following statement to make the logic clear? WDYT

errMsg := "" err := msg.RawError() if err != nil { if errtypes.IsTimeout(err) { return types.ContainerWaitOKBody{}, err } errMsg = err.Error() } ....

I think it's ok, only if the code is clear in logic

fuweid · 2018-05-29T01:31:55Z

daemon/mgr/container.go

+	// We should notice that container's meta data shouldn't be locked in wait process, otherwise waiting for
+	// a running container to stop would make other client commands which manage this container are blocked.
+	// If a container status is exited or stopped, return exit code immediately.
+	if c.IsExited() || c.IsStopped() {


So, can we add the case for this? Thanks

fuweid · 2018-05-29T01:50:20Z

test/api_container_wait_test.go

+		resp, err = request.Post("/containers/" + cname + "/wait")
+		close(chWait)
+	}()
+	time.Sleep(100 * time.Millisecond)


I think that we have problem for this case.

<-chWait return which means that the channel chWait has been closed. In the next statement select , the <-chWait always return.

package main import ( "fmt" "time" ) func main() { ch := make(chan struct{}) go func() { time.Sleep(2 * time.Second) close(ch) }() fmt.Println(<-ch) fmt.Println(<-ch) }

So I think we still need to update the case like, WDYT?

chWait := make(chan struct{}) go func() { chWait <- struct{}{} resp, err = request.Post("/containers/" + cname + "/wait") close(chWait) }() <-chWait // wait for the goroutine activate time.Sleep(100 * time.Millisecond) stopContainerOk(c, cname) select { ... }

since we have call <-chWait before, why we wait chWait in select again ?

@HusterWan we need to make sure that the Stop command can let the wait quit.

fuweid · 2018-05-29T01:51:15Z

test/api_container_wait_test.go

+
+// TestRunningContainer tests waiting a running container to stop, then returns 200.
+func (suite *APIContainerWaitSuite) TestRunningContainer(c *check.C) {
+	cname := "TestRunningContainer"


Please use the TestWaitForRunningContainer so that the case doesn't impact other case.

Agree! @xiechengsheng please change the function name, because TestRunningContainer may has confusion, thanks a lot !

xiechengsheng · 2018-05-29T08:54:47Z

@fuweid OK, I'll fix all ASAP.

fuweid · 2018-05-30T01:35:25Z

ctrd/container.go

+	// wait for the task to exit.
+	msg = waitExit()
+
+	if err := msg.RawError(); err != nil && errtypes.IsTimeout(err) {


emmm... could we remove this duplicate line, since you have done it in the following statement?

fuweid · 2018-05-30T01:37:38Z

daemon/mgr/container.go

+	// If a container status is created, return 0 as status code.
+	if c.IsCreated() {
+		return types.ContainerWaitOKBody{
+			Error:      c.State.Error,


I think we can just left the Error field empty. WDYT?

OK, I'll fix all.

Signed-off-by: xiechengsheng <[email protected]>

fuweid · 2018-05-30T14:41:49Z

LGTM. I will merge it after CI is green.

Thanks @xiechengsheng ! Great job.

pouchrobot added areas/cli kind/feature size/XL labels May 16, 2018

xiechengsheng force-pushed the add-wait branch from c4cb055 to 303d023 Compare May 16, 2018 03:32

xiechengsheng force-pushed the add-wait branch 2 times, most recently from 21517d2 to 8f2a6c4 Compare May 16, 2018 07:42

pouchrobot added conflict/needs-rebase and removed conflict/needs-rebase labels May 17, 2018

Letty5411 reviewed May 17, 2018

View reviewed changes

xiechengsheng force-pushed the add-wait branch from 8f2a6c4 to 427cf30 Compare May 17, 2018 09:20

pouchrobot removed the conflict/needs-rebase label May 17, 2018

xiechengsheng force-pushed the add-wait branch from 427cf30 to 3a9bfa6 Compare May 19, 2018 12:55

fuweid reviewed May 21, 2018

View reviewed changes

fuweid self-assigned this May 21, 2018

fuweid reviewed May 21, 2018

View reviewed changes

xiechengsheng force-pushed the add-wait branch 2 times, most recently from 70e58f1 to e2b16c3 Compare May 21, 2018 15:12

fuweid reviewed May 22, 2018

View reviewed changes

shaloulcy reviewed May 23, 2018

View reviewed changes

cli/wait.go Outdated

baseCommand

}

// Init initialize wait command.

Copy link

Contributor

shaloulcy May 23, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

s/initialize/initializes/

xiechengsheng commented May 23, 2018

View reviewed changes

fuweid reviewed May 24, 2018

View reviewed changes

xiechengsheng force-pushed the add-wait branch 2 times, most recently from b0d78d1 to d53c13b Compare May 24, 2018 05:54

fuweid reviewed May 24, 2018

View reviewed changes

xiechengsheng force-pushed the add-wait branch from d53c13b to b067374 Compare May 25, 2018 05:36

fuweid reviewed May 25, 2018

View reviewed changes

xiechengsheng force-pushed the add-wait branch 4 times, most recently from 13a29b0 to b6e3027 Compare May 26, 2018 04:34

xiechengsheng force-pushed the add-wait branch from b6e3027 to c3b6601 Compare May 28, 2018 02:26

xiechengsheng force-pushed the add-wait branch from c3b6601 to 6fbcf9c Compare May 28, 2018 03:43

xiechengsheng force-pushed the add-wait branch from 6fbcf9c to 6bd2838 Compare May 28, 2018 05:32

fuweid reviewed May 28, 2018

View reviewed changes

fuweid reviewed May 29, 2018

View reviewed changes

xiechengsheng force-pushed the add-wait branch from 6bd2838 to b34b528 Compare May 29, 2018 11:15

fuweid reviewed May 30, 2018

View reviewed changes

feature: add wait client command for pouch

4d3b96f

Signed-off-by: xiechengsheng <[email protected]>

xiechengsheng force-pushed the add-wait branch from b34b528 to 4d3b96f Compare May 30, 2018 14:17

fuweid merged commit f3f72cf into AliyunContainerService:master May 30, 2018

pouchrobot mentioned this pull request May 31, 2018

Weekly Report of Pouch from 2018-05-24 to 2018-05-31 #1443

Closed

feature: add wait client command for pouch #1333

feature: add wait client command for pouch #1333

Conversation

xiechengsheng commented May 16, 2018 • edited Loading

Ⅰ. Describe what this PR did

Ⅱ. Does this pull request fix one issue?

Ⅲ. Describe how you did it

Ⅳ. Describe how to verify it

Ⅴ. Special notes for reviews

HusterWan commented May 16, 2018

xiechengsheng commented May 16, 2018

codecov-io commented May 16, 2018 • edited Loading

Codecov Report

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

xiechengsheng commented May 20, 2018

fuweid left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

fuweid May 21, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

xiechengsheng May 21, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

xiechengsheng commented May 21, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

fuweid commented May 22, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

fuweid commented May 23, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

fuweid left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

fuweid May 24, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

fuweid left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

xiechengsheng commented May 26, 2018

fuweid commented May 28, 2018

xiechengsheng commented May 16, 2018 •

edited

Loading

codecov-io commented May 16, 2018 •

edited

Loading

fuweid May 21, 2018 •

edited

Loading

xiechengsheng May 21, 2018 •

edited

Loading

xiechengsheng commented May 21, 2018 •

edited

Loading

fuweid May 24, 2018 •

edited

Loading