> On Nov. 6, 2019, 5:11 p.m., Benno Evers wrote: > > src/master/master.cpp > > Lines 3810 (patched) > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/71729/diff/1/?file=2171587#file2171587line3810> > > > > It doesn't seem ideal to have recursively nested calls to > > `collectauthorizations()`, even if the logic is sound it seems hard to > > reason about. > > > > Would it be possible to eliminate the branching by setting `source` to > > be `resources.popReservation()` if `source` is empty? > > Benjamin Bannier wrote: > > Would it be possible to eliminate the branching by setting source to be > resources.popReservation() if source is empty? > > This would only work if we know that all resources passed to `RESERVE` > are indeed reserved. Unfortunately that is not the case in the current > implementation (e.g., `cpus(A):1;mem:256` would reserve only `cpus`). We need > to keep support for that behavior as it is part of the APII. > > In the patch I put up we go from the narrower extended API (e.g., all > resources passed to `RESERVE` must have identical reservations) to the wider > existing API so we are good. Going from wider to narrower doesn't work, > though. > > What I could do for the sake of readibility would be to introduce a > dedicated function for the legacy behavior to avoid the self-recursion. I am > not sure that would help (and might it even make harder to follow the code). > > WDYT? > > Benno Evers wrote: > Intuitively introducing a dedicated function sounds cleaner to me, but > the self-recursion should be fine as well if there's no easy way to avoid it. > Maybe it would be good to add some of the reasoning above to the comment, > though.
I added context to the comment. - Benjamin ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/71729/#review218545 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Nov. 8, 2019, 1:48 p.m., Benjamin Bannier wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/71729/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Nov. 8, 2019, 1:48 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos and Benno Evers. > > > Bugs: MESOS-9991 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-9991 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > This patch adds authorization handling for `RESERVE` operations > containing `source` fields. In order to stay backwards-compatible we add > a dedicated authorization branch for such operations which under the > hood translates each removed reservation to an `UNRESERVE` operation and > every added reservation as a `RESERVE` operation where we fall back to > existing authorization code for authorization. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/master/master.cpp 2fdd6f7ddbb488d785c6f875c8b0c46c5f881d9d > src/tests/master_authorization_tests.cpp > 06471aa7779d399f4474ed40db3fbcc60b8298b2 > > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/71729/diff/3/ > > > Testing > ------- > > `make check` > > > Thanks, > > Benjamin Bannier > >
