https://codereview.appspot.com/98260043/diff/60001/state/unit_test.go#newcode1349
state/unit_test.go:1349: //TODO(jcw4): need to figure out how to inject
'contention' into the transaction
On 2014/05/21 20:35:25, gz wrote:
> This is where we really want a generic contention helper so each add
doesn't
> have to futz around with testing its loop. I think William has hopes
for that at
> some point later.
Okay proposing again.
https:/ /codereview. appspot. com/98260043/ diff/60001/ state/action. go
File state/action.go (right):
https:/ /codereview. appspot. com/98260043/ diff/60001/ state/action. go#newcode8 interface{ }
state/action.go:8: Payload map[string]
On 2014/05/21 20:35:25, gz wrote:
> I think I'd comment these members. Clarifies thinks like what defines
the action
> name, and what determines the payload type.
Done.
https:/ /codereview. appspot. com/98260043/ diff/60001/ state/unit_ test.go
File state/unit_test.go (right):
https:/ /codereview. appspot. com/98260043/ diff/60001/ state/unit_ test.go# newcode1328 test.go: 1328: c.Assert(err, gc.NotNil)
state/unit_
On 2014/05/21 20:35:25, gz wrote:
> Probably want to ErrorMatches this even though it's from below the
AddAction
> function.
Done.
https:/ /codereview. appspot. com/98260043/ diff/60001/ state/unit_ test.go# newcode1349 test.go: 1349: //TODO(jcw4): need to figure out how to inject
state/unit_
'contention' into the transaction
On 2014/05/21 20:35:25, gz wrote:
> This is where we really want a generic contention helper so each add
doesn't
> have to futz around with testing its loop. I think William has hopes
for that at
> some point later.
Yep
https:/ /codereview. appspot. com/98260043/