----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/57167/#review170328 -----------------------------------------------------------
Fix it, then Ship it! src/master/quota_handler.cpp Lines 111-115 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/57167/#comment243132> Is this `CHECK` here to require that we only `insert` once per `role`...? If yes, it seems that the comment is a bit confusing to me? Could you clarify the intended semantics here? src/master/quota_handler.cpp Lines 153-155 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/57167/#comment243133> Let's still put the members at the bottom. src/master/quota_handler.cpp Lines 469-487 (original), 605-618 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/57167/#comment243127> Couldn't this be just: ```cpp vector<string> components = strings::split(request.url.path, "/", 3u); if (components.size() < 3u) { return BadRequest( "Failed to parse request path '" + request.url.path + "': 3 tokens ('master', 'quota', 'role') required, found " + stringify(tokens.size()) + " token(s)")); } CHECK_EQ(3u, components.size()); const string& role = components.back(); /* ... */ ``` src/tests/master_quota_tests.cpp Lines 1800-1816 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/57167/#comment243155> How about something like this? ```cpp map<string, Resources> expected = {{parent.role(), parent.guarantee()}, {child.role(), child.guarantee()}}; map<string, Resources> actual = { {status->infos(0).role(), status->infos(0).guarantee()}, {status->infos(1).role(), status->infos(1).guarantee()} }; EXPECT_EQ(expected, actual); ``` - Michael Park On March 22, 2017, 5:53 p.m., Neil Conway wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/57167/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated March 22, 2017, 5:53 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos and Michael Park. > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > The quota'd resources for a nested role are "included" within the > quota'd resources for that role's parent. Hence, the quota of a node > must always be greater than or equal to the sum of the quota'd resources > of that role's children. > > When creating and removing quota, we must ensure that this invariant is > not violated. > > When computing the cluster capacity heuristic, we must ensure that we do > not "double-count" quota'd resources: e.g., if the cluster has a total > capacity of 100 CPUs, role "x" has a quota guarantee of 80 CPUs, and > role "x/y" has a quota guarantee of 40 CPUs, this does NOT violate the > cluster capacity heuristic. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/master/quota_handler.cpp 36ea1acca47014b2fb7a3b597b857c8ec9e2ab67 > src/tests/hierarchical_allocator_tests.cpp > e343dc37bd7136f0f6dd5dbc22a25cabe715038d > src/tests/master_quota_tests.cpp e418f22ea1773f4356ced44b8d57a80e826c8837 > > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/57167/diff/8/ > > > Testing > ------- > > `make check` > > > Thanks, > > Neil Conway > >
