> On Oct. 13, 2015, 3:35 a.m., Guangya Liu wrote: > > include/mesos/resources.hpp, lines 114-118 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/39018/diff/10/?file=1096259#file1096259line114> > > > > Can this be removed or merged to the under comments?
I put the comment here so that it wouldn't interfere with the Doxygen documentation, which should be placed directly before the member declaration. I don't want to remove it, because I think the TODO is still valid. I'm open to moving it if there is a better place for it; do you have one in mind? > On Oct. 13, 2015, 3:35 a.m., Guangya Liu wrote: > > include/mesos/resources.hpp, line 120 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/39018/diff/10/?file=1096259#file1096259line120> > > > > s/Validates/Validate This description should be fine; see the Google C++ style guide, which states that function comments should be "descriptive" rather than "declarative": https://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/cppguide.html#Function_Comments > On Oct. 13, 2015, 3:35 a.m., Guangya Liu wrote: > > include/mesos/resources.hpp, line 412 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/39018/diff/10/?file=1096259#file1096259line412> > > > > s/conflictingTypes/conflictTypes? I would suggest either `conflictingTypes` or `typesConflict`, since these are both abbreviations of English sentences that describe what the method does, i.e. it "checks for conflicting types", or "checks to see if any types conflict". I don't like `conflictTypes` because it sounds like the method will cause a conflict of some kind. I like the current name, but am open to changing it if there is a better alternative. - Greg ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39018/#review102382 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Oct. 12, 2015, 6:38 p.m., Greg Mann wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/39018/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Oct. 12, 2015, 6:38 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Adam B, Alexander Rukletsov, Jie Yu, and Michael > Park. > > > Bugs: MESOS-2467 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2467 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > This includes code changes necessary for JSON parsing of Resources. > Documentation changes will be posted soon in another review > (https://reviews.apache.org/r/39102/). > > > Diffs > ----- > > include/mesos/resources.hpp 6c3a065945eb56dc88df9c977e5ca11d4cbcbf61 > include/mesos/v1/resources.hpp fe8925ac851b74d1b37919f00afc7ed816f47ea5 > src/common/resources.cpp 601388c35a1bff37c58e753d1870d53b8d0af2d1 > src/tests/resources_tests.cpp 6584fc6c39e6ffe9f8085576677dcc669f127697 > src/v1/resources.cpp dc868903472f8f3a1ddc56092e3f8f81d953ce39 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/39018/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > New code was added to `ResourcesTest.ParsingFromJSON`, and two new tests were > added: `ResourcesTest.ParsingFromJSONWithRoles` and > `ResourcesTest.ParsingFromJSONError`. These attempt to test common error > scenarios that might show up in user-supplied JSON. > > `make check` was used to confirm that all tests pass, with one notable > failure (ResourcesTest.ParsingFromJSONError) related to a picojson issue > tracked here: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-3698 > > The original resources parsing format is used throughout many other tests > (check `src/tests/sorter_tests.cpp`, for example), so it's clear that the > original parsing continues to work correctly. > > > Thanks, > > Greg Mann > >