----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/66050/#review201150 -----------------------------------------------------------
src/master/master.cpp Lines 4969 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/66050/#comment282183> " with additional resource "? src/master/master.cpp Lines 4976 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/66050/#comment282193> As we discussed, we should validate that there is only one operation. Shouldn't we add the check in this function? Ditto for `SHRINK_VOLUME`. src/master/validation.cpp Lines 2336 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/66050/#comment282189> For consistency, I prefer just `"Invalid resource: "`. Or if you want to make it explicit, maybe: `"Invalid resource in the 'volume' field: "`, or `Invalid resource in the 'GrowVolume.volume' field: "`. Ditto below for 'addition': `"Invalid resource: "`, or `"Invalid additional resource: "`, or `"Invalid resource in the 'addition' field: "`, or `"Invalid resource in the 'GrowVolume.addition' field: "`. Note that I use `GrowVolume` instead of `grow_volume` since there is no guarantee that the field being validated by this funciton is called `grow_volume`. src/master/validation.cpp Lines 2376 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/66050/#comment282190> s/field/fields/ src/master/validation.cpp Lines 2387 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/66050/#comment282191> Similar to the reason I mentioned above, let's do either of the followings: `"Invalid resource: "` `"Invalid resource in the 'volume' field: "` `Invalid resource in the 'ShrinkVolume.volume' field: "` src/master/validation.cpp Lines 2392 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/66050/#comment282192> Also: `"The 'subtract' field must..."` or `"The 'ShrinkVolume.subtract' field must..."`. - Chun-Hung Hsiao On April 10, 2018, 4:18 a.m., Zhitao Li wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/66050/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated April 10, 2018, 4:18 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Chun-Hung Hsiao, Gaston Kleiman, and Greg Mann. > > > Bugs: MESOS-4965 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-4965 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > The new offer operations are implemented as speculative operations, but > we will use validation to make them non-speculative on API level so that > we can transition later without a breaking change. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/common/protobuf_utils.cpp 141a444534b776a2c90e2a0daf9727cd21e39080 > src/common/resources_utils.cpp 9be01c1abd48264e308960f35cc7c2ee8a367518 > src/master/master.cpp f7da675e8fe96159e5335c9e83b65b67ed90eda8 > src/master/validation.hpp 7c129ceb929596acbb64d37025e055661277e6bf > src/master/validation.cpp ac2e1bb8771841ec59b3bdcdeffb6c6230680d4d > src/tests/mesos.hpp 6f4e0c5567b99891f6d0eceb7e6917d25083db0e > src/tests/persistent_volume_tests.cpp > 4edf781711d9efdb994114aeb6289b6af750b87a > src/tests/reservation_tests.cpp 5570df2e0b208512d0a0a3079a180e1acfe08f3d > > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/66050/diff/8/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Zhitao Li > >
