[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-10117?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17039028#comment-17039028
]
Kinga Marton commented on YARN-10117:
-------------------------------------
There is no need for adjustments, because I passed only the queue name instead
of the full queue path, so the apps were placed in the wrong queue(root.c1
created dinamically instead of root.c.c1). Passing the full queue path will
generate the same results.
I will open a new Jira for creating some unit tests for the manually tested
scenarios.
> FS-CS converter: adjust queue ACL to have the same output with CS as for FS
> has
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: YARN-10117
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/YARN-10117
> Project: Hadoop YARN
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Reporter: Kinga Marton
> Priority: Major
>
> Both FS and CS seems to check the ACL recursively: from the leaf via the
> parent(s) to the root (inclusive). However there are some differences in
> evaluating them, what cause to have different results with the two schedulers.
> Some examples are the following ones:
> ||Tested scenario||FS output||CS output||
> |Root - “ ”
> C - *
> C1 - *|Denied by root ACL|OK|
> |Root - “ ”
> C - “ ”
> C1 - “ ”|Denied by root ACL|OK|
> |Root - “ ”
> C - *
> C1 - “ ”|Denied by root ACL|OK|
> |Root - “ ”
> C - “ ”
> C1 - *|Denied by root ACL|OK|
> Note: I have set the same value for both submit application and administer
> queue ACLs
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
