Re: Review Request 35715: Added revocable resource state validation.

2015-07-16 Thread Michael Park 


> On June 21, 2015, 6:47 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
> > src/common/resources.cpp, lines 479-487
> > 
> >
> > These checks are done in master's validation.cpp
> 
> Michael Park wrote:
> Ah sorry, I missed that.
> 
> This reminded me of the discussion Jie and I had for 
> [r32140](https://reviews.apache.org/r/32140/) regarding where validations 
> should live. I think this validation belongs here rather than in master 
> validation.
> What we concluded from the discussion was that `Resources::validate` 
> should perform necessary validation to satisfy the invariant of the 
> `Resource` object.
> This enables methods that operate on `Resource` (e.g. 
> `Resources::isRevocable`) to assume its validity.
> 
> My notes:
> > Synced with Jie on IRC regarding this topic. We agreed that 
> `Resources::validate` needs to capture the invariant of the `Resource` object 
> which means it needs to invalidate the `role == "*" && has_reservation()` 
> state. This invariant is required for all the predicates as well as functions 
> such as `reserved()` and `unreserved()` to have well-defined behavior.
> 
> Jie's note:
> > Discussed with Mpark offline. We agreed that rule for 
> Resources::validate is that it should only perform necessary validation to 
> make sure all methods in Resources are well hahaved, and the validation 
> around * and reservation info is necessary for 'reserved/unreserved' to work 
> properly. Thus dropping the issue around validation.
> 
> Michael Park wrote:
> I found Jie's comment regarding this: 
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/33865/#comment133597
> 
> @Jie: My thought here was that these checks are necessary to make 
> `isRevocable` well-defined. The same way the check for `"*" resource cannot 
> be dynamically reserved` is necessary to make `isDynamicallyReserved` and 
> others well-defined?
> 
> Jie Yu wrote:
> @Mpark,
> 
> I think the following check is in Resources::validate because otherwise 
> isReserved will break (e.g., role = `*` and reservation is not set, 
> isReserved(resource, `*`) will return true).
> 
> ```
> if (resource.role() == "*" && resource.has_reservation()) {
>   return Error(
>   "Invalid reservation: role \"*\" cannot be dynamically reserved");
> }
> ```
> 
> Michael Park wrote:
> @Jie,
> > e.g., role = * and reservation is not set, isReserved(resource, *) will 
> return true
> 
> If you meant `role = * and reservation _is_ set`, then yes.
> 
> I'm saying that exact reasoning is also why these checks should be in 
> `Resources::validate`, because otherwise `isRevocable` will break.
> e.g. `reservation is set and revocable is set`, `isRevocable` will return 
> true.
> 
> Niklas Nielsen wrote:
> Hey guys - did you reach a conclusion?
> 
> Niklas Nielsen wrote:
> MPark; how can we get closure on this?

I asked Jie to look at it a while ago but I think he's quite busy. I'll discard 
it for now.


- Michael


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/#review88710
---


On June 21, 2015, 7 p.m., Michael Park wrote:
> 
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/
> ---
> 
> (Updated June 21, 2015, 7 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Jie Yu, Niklas Nielsen, and Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> ---
> 
> In `mesos.proto`, it specifies the expected state of revocable resource:
> 
> ```
> // ... Note that if this is set, 'disk' or 'reservation' cannot be set.
> optional RevocableInfo revocable = 9;
> ```
>   
> This expectation should be validated in `Resources::validate(const Resource& 
> resoure)`
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -
> 
>   src/common/resources.cpp eb5476a0365fe65f474afd0ab7a52ad7f1e04521 
>   src/tests/resources_tests.cpp 9f96b14a6a4ce416d044934dd7ab4d28e4bc7332 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> ---
> 
> Added `RevocableResourceTest.Validation` + `make check`
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Michael Park
> 
>

Re: Review Request 35715: Added revocable resource state validation.

2015-07-16 Thread Niklas Nielsen 


> On June 21, 2015, 11:47 a.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
> > src/common/resources.cpp, lines 479-487
> > 
> >
> > These checks are done in master's validation.cpp
> 
> Michael Park wrote:
> Ah sorry, I missed that.
> 
> This reminded me of the discussion Jie and I had for 
> [r32140](https://reviews.apache.org/r/32140/) regarding where validations 
> should live. I think this validation belongs here rather than in master 
> validation.
> What we concluded from the discussion was that `Resources::validate` 
> should perform necessary validation to satisfy the invariant of the 
> `Resource` object.
> This enables methods that operate on `Resource` (e.g. 
> `Resources::isRevocable`) to assume its validity.
> 
> My notes:
> > Synced with Jie on IRC regarding this topic. We agreed that 
> `Resources::validate` needs to capture the invariant of the `Resource` object 
> which means it needs to invalidate the `role == "*" && has_reservation()` 
> state. This invariant is required for all the predicates as well as functions 
> such as `reserved()` and `unreserved()` to have well-defined behavior.
> 
> Jie's note:
> > Discussed with Mpark offline. We agreed that rule for 
> Resources::validate is that it should only perform necessary validation to 
> make sure all methods in Resources are well hahaved, and the validation 
> around * and reservation info is necessary for 'reserved/unreserved' to work 
> properly. Thus dropping the issue around validation.
> 
> Michael Park wrote:
> I found Jie's comment regarding this: 
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/33865/#comment133597
> 
> @Jie: My thought here was that these checks are necessary to make 
> `isRevocable` well-defined. The same way the check for `"*" resource cannot 
> be dynamically reserved` is necessary to make `isDynamicallyReserved` and 
> others well-defined?
> 
> Jie Yu wrote:
> @Mpark,
> 
> I think the following check is in Resources::validate because otherwise 
> isReserved will break (e.g., role = `*` and reservation is not set, 
> isReserved(resource, `*`) will return true).
> 
> ```
> if (resource.role() == "*" && resource.has_reservation()) {
>   return Error(
>   "Invalid reservation: role \"*\" cannot be dynamically reserved");
> }
> ```
> 
> Michael Park wrote:
> @Jie,
> > e.g., role = * and reservation is not set, isReserved(resource, *) will 
> return true
> 
> If you meant `role = * and reservation _is_ set`, then yes.
> 
> I'm saying that exact reasoning is also why these checks should be in 
> `Resources::validate`, because otherwise `isRevocable` will break.
> e.g. `reservation is set and revocable is set`, `isRevocable` will return 
> true.
> 
> Niklas Nielsen wrote:
> Hey guys - did you reach a conclusion?

MPark; how can we get closure on this?


- Niklas


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/#review88710
---


On June 21, 2015, noon, Michael Park wrote:
> 
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/
> ---
> 
> (Updated June 21, 2015, noon)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Jie Yu, Niklas Nielsen, and Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> ---
> 
> In `mesos.proto`, it specifies the expected state of revocable resource:
> 
> ```
> // ... Note that if this is set, 'disk' or 'reservation' cannot be set.
> optional RevocableInfo revocable = 9;
> ```
>   
> This expectation should be validated in `Resources::validate(const Resource& 
> resoure)`
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -
> 
>   src/common/resources.cpp eb5476a0365fe65f474afd0ab7a52ad7f1e04521 
>   src/tests/resources_tests.cpp 9f96b14a6a4ce416d044934dd7ab4d28e4bc7332 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> ---
> 
> Added `RevocableResourceTest.Validation` + `make check`
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Michael Park
> 
>

Re: Review Request 35715: Added revocable resource state validation.

2015-06-23 Thread Niklas Nielsen 


> On June 21, 2015, 11:47 a.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
> > src/common/resources.cpp, lines 479-487
> > 
> >
> > These checks are done in master's validation.cpp
> 
> Michael Park wrote:
> Ah sorry, I missed that.
> 
> This reminded me of the discussion Jie and I had for 
> [r32140](https://reviews.apache.org/r/32140/) regarding where validations 
> should live. I think this validation belongs here rather than in master 
> validation.
> What we concluded from the discussion was that `Resources::validate` 
> should perform necessary validation to satisfy the invariant of the 
> `Resource` object.
> This enables methods that operate on `Resource` (e.g. 
> `Resources::isRevocable`) to assume its validity.
> 
> My notes:
> > Synced with Jie on IRC regarding this topic. We agreed that 
> `Resources::validate` needs to capture the invariant of the `Resource` object 
> which means it needs to invalidate the `role == "*" && has_reservation()` 
> state. This invariant is required for all the predicates as well as functions 
> such as `reserved()` and `unreserved()` to have well-defined behavior.
> 
> Jie's note:
> > Discussed with Mpark offline. We agreed that rule for 
> Resources::validate is that it should only perform necessary validation to 
> make sure all methods in Resources are well hahaved, and the validation 
> around * and reservation info is necessary for 'reserved/unreserved' to work 
> properly. Thus dropping the issue around validation.
> 
> Michael Park wrote:
> I found Jie's comment regarding this: 
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/33865/#comment133597
> 
> @Jie: My thought here was that these checks are necessary to make 
> `isRevocable` well-defined. The same way the check for `"*" resource cannot 
> be dynamically reserved` is necessary to make `isDynamicallyReserved` and 
> others well-defined?
> 
> Jie Yu wrote:
> @Mpark,
> 
> I think the following check is in Resources::validate because otherwise 
> isReserved will break (e.g., role = `*` and reservation is not set, 
> isReserved(resource, `*`) will return true).
> 
> ```
> if (resource.role() == "*" && resource.has_reservation()) {
>   return Error(
>   "Invalid reservation: role \"*\" cannot be dynamically reserved");
> }
> ```
> 
> Michael Park wrote:
> @Jie,
> > e.g., role = * and reservation is not set, isReserved(resource, *) will 
> return true
> 
> If you meant `role = * and reservation _is_ set`, then yes.
> 
> I'm saying that exact reasoning is also why these checks should be in 
> `Resources::validate`, because otherwise `isRevocable` will break.
> e.g. `reservation is set and revocable is set`, `isRevocable` will return 
> true.

Hey guys - did you reach a conclusion?


- Niklas


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/#review88710
---


On June 21, 2015, noon, Michael Park wrote:
> 
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/
> ---
> 
> (Updated June 21, 2015, noon)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Jie Yu, Niklas Nielsen, and Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> ---
> 
> In `mesos.proto`, it specifies the expected state of revocable resource:
> 
> ```
> // ... Note that if this is set, 'disk' or 'reservation' cannot be set.
> optional RevocableInfo revocable = 9;
> ```
>   
> This expectation should be validated in `Resources::validate(const Resource& 
> resoure)`
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -
> 
>   src/common/resources.cpp eb5476a0365fe65f474afd0ab7a52ad7f1e04521 
>   src/tests/resources_tests.cpp 9f96b14a6a4ce416d044934dd7ab4d28e4bc7332 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> ---
> 
> Added `RevocableResourceTest.Validation` + `make check`
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Michael Park
> 
>

Re: Review Request 35715: Added revocable resource state validation.

2015-06-22 Thread Michael Park 


> On June 21, 2015, 6:47 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
> > src/common/resources.cpp, lines 479-487
> > 
> >
> > These checks are done in master's validation.cpp
> 
> Michael Park wrote:
> Ah sorry, I missed that.
> 
> This reminded me of the discussion Jie and I had for 
> [r32140](https://reviews.apache.org/r/32140/) regarding where validations 
> should live. I think this validation belongs here rather than in master 
> validation.
> What we concluded from the discussion was that `Resources::validate` 
> should perform necessary validation to satisfy the invariant of the 
> `Resource` object.
> This enables methods that operate on `Resource` (e.g. 
> `Resources::isRevocable`) to assume its validity.
> 
> My notes:
> > Synced with Jie on IRC regarding this topic. We agreed that 
> `Resources::validate` needs to capture the invariant of the `Resource` object 
> which means it needs to invalidate the `role == "*" && has_reservation()` 
> state. This invariant is required for all the predicates as well as functions 
> such as `reserved()` and `unreserved()` to have well-defined behavior.
> 
> Jie's note:
> > Discussed with Mpark offline. We agreed that rule for 
> Resources::validate is that it should only perform necessary validation to 
> make sure all methods in Resources are well hahaved, and the validation 
> around * and reservation info is necessary for 'reserved/unreserved' to work 
> properly. Thus dropping the issue around validation.
> 
> Michael Park wrote:
> I found Jie's comment regarding this: 
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/33865/#comment133597
> 
> @Jie: My thought here was that these checks are necessary to make 
> `isRevocable` well-defined. The same way the check for `"*" resource cannot 
> be dynamically reserved` is necessary to make `isDynamicallyReserved` and 
> others well-defined?
> 
> Jie Yu wrote:
> @Mpark,
> 
> I think the following check is in Resources::validate because otherwise 
> isReserved will break (e.g., role = `*` and reservation is not set, 
> isReserved(resource, `*`) will return true).
> 
> ```
> if (resource.role() == "*" && resource.has_reservation()) {
>   return Error(
>   "Invalid reservation: role \"*\" cannot be dynamically reserved");
> }
> ```

@Jie,
> e.g., role = * and reservation is not set, isReserved(resource, *) will 
> return true

If you meant `role = * and reservation _is_ set`, then yes.

I'm saying that exact reasoning is also why these checks should be in 
`Resources::validate`, because otherwise `isRevocable` will break.
e.g. `reservation is set and revocable is set`, `isRevocable` will return true.


- Michael


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/#review88710
---


On June 21, 2015, 7 p.m., Michael Park wrote:
> 
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/
> ---
> 
> (Updated June 21, 2015, 7 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Jie Yu, Niklas Nielsen, and Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> ---
> 
> In `mesos.proto`, it specifies the expected state of revocable resource:
> 
> ```
> // ... Note that if this is set, 'disk' or 'reservation' cannot be set.
> optional RevocableInfo revocable = 9;
> ```
>   
> This expectation should be validated in `Resources::validate(const Resource& 
> resoure)`
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -
> 
>   src/common/resources.cpp eb5476a0365fe65f474afd0ab7a52ad7f1e04521 
>   src/tests/resources_tests.cpp 9f96b14a6a4ce416d044934dd7ab4d28e4bc7332 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> ---
> 
> Added `RevocableResourceTest.Validation` + `make check`
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Michael Park
> 
>

Re: Review Request 35715: Added revocable resource state validation.

2015-06-22 Thread Jie Yu 


> On June 21, 2015, 6:47 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
> > src/common/resources.cpp, lines 479-487
> > 
> >
> > These checks are done in master's validation.cpp
> 
> Michael Park wrote:
> Ah sorry, I missed that.
> 
> This reminded me of the discussion Jie and I had for 
> [r32140](https://reviews.apache.org/r/32140/) regarding where validations 
> should live. I think this validation belongs here rather than in master 
> validation.
> What we concluded from the discussion was that `Resources::validate` 
> should perform necessary validation to satisfy the invariant of the 
> `Resource` object.
> This enables methods that operate on `Resource` (e.g. 
> `Resources::isRevocable`) to assume its validity.
> 
> My notes:
> > Synced with Jie on IRC regarding this topic. We agreed that 
> `Resources::validate` needs to capture the invariant of the `Resource` object 
> which means it needs to invalidate the `role == "*" && has_reservation()` 
> state. This invariant is required for all the predicates as well as functions 
> such as `reserved()` and `unreserved()` to have well-defined behavior.
> 
> Jie's note:
> > Discussed with Mpark offline. We agreed that rule for 
> Resources::validate is that it should only perform necessary validation to 
> make sure all methods in Resources are well hahaved, and the validation 
> around * and reservation info is necessary for 'reserved/unreserved' to work 
> properly. Thus dropping the issue around validation.
> 
> Michael Park wrote:
> I found Jie's comment regarding this: 
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/33865/#comment133597
> 
> @Jie: My thought here was that these checks are necessary to make 
> `isRevocable` well-defined. The same way the check for `"*" resource cannot 
> be dynamically reserved` is necessary to make `isDynamicallyReserved` and 
> others well-defined?

@Mpark,

I think the following check is in Resources::validate because otherwise 
isReserved will break (e.g., role = `*` and reservation is not set, 
isReserved(resource, `*`) will return true).

```
if (resource.role() == "*" && resource.has_reservation()) {
  return Error(
  "Invalid reservation: role \"*\" cannot be dynamically reserved");
}
```


- Jie


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/#review88710
---


On June 21, 2015, 7 p.m., Michael Park wrote:
> 
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/
> ---
> 
> (Updated June 21, 2015, 7 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Jie Yu, Niklas Nielsen, and Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> ---
> 
> In `mesos.proto`, it specifies the expected state of revocable resource:
> 
> ```
> // ... Note that if this is set, 'disk' or 'reservation' cannot be set.
> optional RevocableInfo revocable = 9;
> ```
>   
> This expectation should be validated in `Resources::validate(const Resource& 
> resoure)`
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -
> 
>   src/common/resources.cpp eb5476a0365fe65f474afd0ab7a52ad7f1e04521 
>   src/tests/resources_tests.cpp 9f96b14a6a4ce416d044934dd7ab4d28e4bc7332 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> ---
> 
> Added `RevocableResourceTest.Validation` + `make check`
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Michael Park
> 
>

Re: Review Request 35715: Added revocable resource state validation.

2015-06-21 Thread Michael Park 


> On June 21, 2015, 6:47 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
> > src/common/resources.cpp, lines 479-487
> > 
> >
> > These checks are done in master's validation.cpp
> 
> Michael Park wrote:
> Ah sorry, I missed that.
> 
> This reminded me of the discussion Jie and I had for 
> [r32140](https://reviews.apache.org/r/32140/) regarding where validations 
> should live. I think this validation belongs here rather than in master 
> validation.
> What we concluded from the discussion was that `Resources::validate` 
> should perform necessary validation to satisfy the invariant of the 
> `Resource` object.
> This enables methods that operate on `Resource` (e.g. 
> `Resources::isRevocable`) to assume its validity.
> 
> My notes:
> > Synced with Jie on IRC regarding this topic. We agreed that 
> `Resources::validate` needs to capture the invariant of the `Resource` object 
> which means it needs to invalidate the `role == "*" && has_reservation()` 
> state. This invariant is required for all the predicates as well as functions 
> such as `reserved()` and `unreserved()` to have well-defined behavior.
> 
> Jie's note:
> > Discussed with Mpark offline. We agreed that rule for 
> Resources::validate is that it should only perform necessary validation to 
> make sure all methods in Resources are well hahaved, and the validation 
> around * and reservation info is necessary for 'reserved/unreserved' to work 
> properly. Thus dropping the issue around validation.

I found Jie's comment regarding this: 
https://reviews.apache.org/r/33865/#comment133597

@Jie: My thought here was that these checks are necessary to make `isRevocable` 
well-defined. The same way the check for `"*" resource cannot be dynamically 
reserved` is necessary to make `isDynamicallyReserved` and others well-defined?


- Michael


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/#review88710
---


On June 21, 2015, 7 p.m., Michael Park wrote:
> 
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/
> ---
> 
> (Updated June 21, 2015, 7 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Jie Yu, Niklas Nielsen, and Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> ---
> 
> In `mesos.proto`, it specifies the expected state of revocable resource:
> 
> ```
> // ... Note that if this is set, 'disk' or 'reservation' cannot be set.
> optional RevocableInfo revocable = 9;
> ```
>   
> This expectation should be validated in `Resources::validate(const Resource& 
> resoure)`
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -
> 
>   src/common/resources.cpp eb5476a0365fe65f474afd0ab7a52ad7f1e04521 
>   src/tests/resources_tests.cpp 9f96b14a6a4ce416d044934dd7ab4d28e4bc7332 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> ---
> 
> Added `RevocableResourceTest.Validation` + `make check`
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Michael Park
> 
>

Re: Review Request 35715: Added revocable resource state validation.

2015-06-21 Thread Michael Park 


> On June 21, 2015, 6:47 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
> > src/common/resources.cpp, lines 479-487
> > 
> >
> > These checks are done in master's validation.cpp

Ah sorry, I missed that.

This reminded me of the discussion Jie and I had for 
[r32140](https://reviews.apache.org/r/32140/) regarding where validations 
should live. I think this validation belongs here rather than in master 
validation.
What we concluded from the discussion was that `Resources::validate` should 
perform necessary validation to satisfy the invariant of the `Resource` object.
This enables methods that operate on `Resource` (e.g. `Resources::isRevocable`) 
to assume its validity.

My notes:
> Synced with Jie on IRC regarding this topic. We agreed that 
> `Resources::validate` needs to capture the invariant of the `Resource` object 
> which means it needs to invalidate the `role == "*" && has_reservation()` 
> state. This invariant is required for all the predicates as well as functions 
> such as `reserved()` and `unreserved()` to have well-defined behavior.

Jie's note:
> Discussed with Mpark offline. We agreed that rule for Resources::validate is 
> that it should only perform necessary validation to make sure all methods in 
> Resources are well hahaved, and the validation around * and reservation info 
> is necessary for 'reserved/unreserved' to work properly. Thus dropping the 
> issue around validation.


- Michael


---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/#review88710
---


On June 21, 2015, 7 p.m., Michael Park wrote:
> 
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/
> ---
> 
> (Updated June 21, 2015, 7 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Jie Yu, Niklas Nielsen, and Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> ---
> 
> In `mesos.proto`, it specifies the expected state of revocable resource:
> 
> ```
> // ... Note that if this is set, 'disk' or 'reservation' cannot be set.
> optional RevocableInfo revocable = 9;
> ```
>   
> This expectation should be validated in `Resources::validate(const Resource& 
> resoure)`
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -
> 
>   src/common/resources.cpp eb5476a0365fe65f474afd0ab7a52ad7f1e04521 
>   src/tests/resources_tests.cpp 9f96b14a6a4ce416d044934dd7ab4d28e4bc7332 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> ---
> 
> Added `RevocableResourceTest.Validation` + `make check`
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Michael Park
> 
>

Re: Review Request 35715: Added revocable resource state validation.

2015-06-21 Thread Vinod Kone 

---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/#review88710
---



src/common/resources.cpp (lines 479 - 487)


These checks are done in master's validation.cpp


- Vinod Kone


On June 21, 2015, 5:10 p.m., Michael Park wrote:
> 
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/
> ---
> 
> (Updated June 21, 2015, 5:10 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Niklas Nielsen and Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> ---
> 
> In `mesos.proto`, it specifies the expected state of revocable resource:
> 
> ```
> // ... Note that if this is set, 'disk' or 'reservation' cannot be set.
> optional RevocableInfo revocable = 9;
> ```
>   
> This expectation should be validated in `Resources::validate(const Resource& 
> resoure)`
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -
> 
>   src/common/resources.cpp eb5476a0365fe65f474afd0ab7a52ad7f1e04521 
>   src/tests/resources_tests.cpp 9f96b14a6a4ce416d044934dd7ab4d28e4bc7332 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> ---
> 
> Added `RevocableResourceTest.Validation` + `make check`
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Michael Park
> 
>

Re: Review Request 35715: Added revocable resource state validation.

2015-06-21 Thread Mesos ReviewBot 

---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/#review88704
---


Patch looks great!

Reviews applied: [35715]

All tests passed.

- Mesos ReviewBot


On June 21, 2015, 5:10 p.m., Michael Park wrote:
> 
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/
> ---
> 
> (Updated June 21, 2015, 5:10 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Niklas Nielsen and Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> ---
> 
> In `mesos.proto`, it specifies the expected state of revocable resource:
> 
> ```
> // ... Note that if this is set, 'disk' or 'reservation' cannot be set.
> optional RevocableInfo revocable = 9;
> ```
>   
> This expectation should be validated in `Resources::validate(const Resource& 
> resoure)`
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -
> 
>   src/common/resources.cpp eb5476a0365fe65f474afd0ab7a52ad7f1e04521 
>   src/tests/resources_tests.cpp 9f96b14a6a4ce416d044934dd7ab4d28e4bc7332 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> ---
> 
> Added `RevocableResourceTest.Validation` + `make check`
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Michael Park
> 
>

Re: Review Request 35715: Added revocable resource state validation.

2015-06-21 Thread Michael Park 

---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/
---

(Updated June 21, 2015, 5:10 p.m.)


Review request for mesos, Niklas Nielsen and Vinod Kone.


Repository: mesos


Description
---

In `mesos.proto`, it specifies the expected state of revocable resource:

```
// ... Note that if this is set, 'disk' or 'reservation' cannot be set.
optional RevocableInfo revocable = 9;
```
  
This expectation should be validated in `Resources::validate(const Resource& 
resoure)`


Diffs
-

  src/common/resources.cpp eb5476a0365fe65f474afd0ab7a52ad7f1e04521 
  src/tests/resources_tests.cpp 9f96b14a6a4ce416d044934dd7ab4d28e4bc7332 

Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/diff/


Testing (updated)
---

Added `RevocableResourceTest.Validation` + `make check`


Thanks,

Michael Park

Review Request 35715: Added revocable resource state validation.

2015-06-21 Thread Michael Park 

---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/
---

Review request for mesos, Niklas Nielsen and Vinod Kone.


Repository: mesos


Description
---

In `mesos.proto`, it specifies the expected state of revocable resource:

```
// ... Note that if this is set, 'disk' or 'reservation' cannot be set.
optional RevocableInfo revocable = 9;
```
  
This expectation should be validated in `Resources::validate(const Resource& 
resoure)`


Diffs
-

  src/common/resources.cpp eb5476a0365fe65f474afd0ab7a52ad7f1e04521 
  src/tests/resources_tests.cpp 9f96b14a6a4ce416d044934dd7ab4d28e4bc7332 

Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/diff/


Testing
---

`make check`


Thanks,

Michael Park