----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/58964/#review175224 -----------------------------------------------------------
Didn't get to the tests, but here's something to start with. include/mesos/authorizer/acls.proto Line 354 (original), 354 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/58964/#comment248672> Should this be `agents` plural? include/mesos/authorizer/acls.proto Lines 364 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/58964/#comment248660> Why do we think `machines` is the entity we want to authorize on? What if we decide we want to authorize on `schedules` in the future? This required field isn't very flexible. Also, why not `agents` like in `RegisterAgent` above. Is there a distinction between agents and machines? include/mesos/authorizer/acls.proto Lines 377 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/58964/#comment248661> s/in/on/ include/mesos/authorizer/acls.proto Lines 387 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/58964/#comment248662> s/in/on/ include/mesos/authorizer/acls.proto Lines 391 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/58964/#comment248663> Missed the comment on this object entity include/mesos/authorizer/acls.proto Lines 394-395 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/58964/#comment248664> s/status of maintenance in/maintenance status of/ include/mesos/authorizer/authorizer.proto Lines 58 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/58964/#comment248673> Unused?!? include/mesos/authorizer/authorizer.proto Lines 204 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/58964/#comment248665> s/he's/is/g in all of these comments include/mesos/authorizer/authorizer.proto Lines 213 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/58964/#comment248666> "on all nodes or none" in each of these comments include/mesos/authorizer/authorizer.proto Lines 221 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/58964/#comment248667> "of all nodes or none" src/authorizer/local/authorizer.cpp Lines 391-398 (original), 391-406 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/58964/#comment248668> Why not merge these all into a single case body? src/authorizer/local/authorizer.cpp Lines 866-867 (original), 879-885 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/58964/#comment248669> These should probably be alpha-sorted as well src/authorizer/local/authorizer.cpp Lines 1024-1025 (original), 1042-1048 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/58964/#comment248670> These should probably be alpha-sorted into the list above. - Adam B On May 12, 2017, 5:51 a.m., Alexander Rojas wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/58964/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated May 12, 2017, 5:51 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Adam B and Greg Mann. > > > Bugs: MESOS-7415 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-7415 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Adds the actions `UPDATE_MAINTENANCE_SCHEDULE`, > `GET_MAINTENANCE_SCHEDULE`, `START_MAINTENANCE`, `STOP_MAINTENANCE` > and `GET_MAINTENANCE_STATUS` to the authorizer API as well as the > necesary code to handle these new actions. > > > Diffs > ----- > > include/mesos/authorizer/acls.proto > ae0b1ea2e6417d186b1606542d75f3a20e0811db > include/mesos/authorizer/authorizer.proto > c9184d151befa4cea9bdebb36a315c760e6424b2 > src/authorizer/local/authorizer.cpp > 89aaf4b712d337d519445c922606789c334e5101 > src/tests/authorization_tests.cpp 32aa6ac4db7854507127ea2fb88b3e92daa277c0 > > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/58964/diff/3/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > Alexander Rojas > >
