> On April 4, 2019, 10:02 p.m., Benjamin Mahler wrote:
> > src/tests/hierarchical_allocator_tests.cpp
> > Lines 6199-6200 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/70390/diff/1/?file=2137502#file2137502line6199>
> >
> > I realize it's not just this test, but this brace syntax but it seems
> > less readable than:
> >
> > const string CHILD_ROLE = "a/b";
> >
> > Does that not compile?
>
> Meng Zhu wrote:
> Changed to `const string CHILD_ROLE = "a/b";`
>
> I think, in general, the initialization list is preferred over the
> assignment when initializing objects. But yeah, here the assignment seems
> more readable. Updated.
> I think, in general, the initialization list is preferred over the assignment
> when initializing objects.
Hm.. the `=` syntax isn't invoking assignment operator when it's also a
declaration of the variable. It's going to invoke the following constructor
FWICT:
```
basic_string( const CharT* s,
const Allocator& alloc = Allocator() );
```
For the brace initializer, I think it's useful in cases where it's needed, like
std::vector, std::map, etc initilazation with entries. However, do you know
what this code does for std::string? At first glance I thought it would invoke
this:
```
basic_string( std::initializer_list<CharT> ilist,
const Allocator& alloc = Allocator() );
```
But this seems to suggest callers like this:
```
string abc = {'a', 'b', 'c'};
```
No? I'm a bit puzzled by what `string abc{"abc"};` actually does..
Also, I think for the use of initializer list construction, we might as well
use `=` to make it more readable?
```
std::map<int, string> m = {{1, "one"}, {2, "2"}}; // seems more readable
// vs
std::map<int, string> m{{1, "one"}, {2, "2"}}; // seems more readable
```
- Benjamin
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/70390/#review214385
-----------------------------------------------------------
On April 4, 2019, 8:31 p.m., Meng Zhu wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/70390/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated April 4, 2019, 8:31 p.m.)
>
>
> Review request for mesos and Benjamin Mahler.
>
>
> Repository: mesos
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> This test verifies that the headroom accounting is correct in the
> presence of subrole allocation. In particular, we need to ensure
> that a subrole's allocation is accounted only once (not multiple
> times in itself as well as all of its ancestors) when calculating
> available the quota headroom.
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> src/tests/hierarchical_allocator_tests.cpp
> c7edee2f49bfac0796c9506265d3bb766416ee63
>
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/70390/diff/2/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> make check
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Meng Zhu
>
>
