> On Sept. 8, 2020, 11:58 p.m., Greg Mann wrote: > > src/master/master.cpp > > Lines 10801 (patched) > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/72832/diff/1/?file=2238999#file2238999line10801> > > > > Should we use `CHECK_NOTNULL` here instead?
With CHECK_NOTNULL you can't add output afterwards (it returns the pointer rather than a stream). I assume that's why the logic I copied from (in `__removeSlave`) uses CHECK. - Benjamin ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/72832/#review221820 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Sept. 8, 2020, 11:47 p.m., Benjamin Mahler wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/72832/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Sept. 8, 2020, 11:47 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos and Greg Mann. > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > To avoid the potential for accidental insertion into the maps, > we prefer to use the .at operator for const access. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/master/master.cpp 02723296e569fac9d553b1494a5ca7daa6ef9aa4 > > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/72832/diff/1/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > Benjamin Mahler > >
