> On April 22, 2015, 12:38 p.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote: > > src/tests/master_validation_tests.cpp, line 328 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/32150/diff/5/?file=920956#file920956line328> > > > > Don't you get an unused variable warning?
Hm, looks like I do. Not sure what happpened there. Sorry about that. > On April 22, 2015, 12:38 p.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote: > > src/tests/master_validation_tests.cpp, line 176 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/32150/diff/5/?file=920956#file920956line176> > > > > const? These variables have been removed as per Jie request. > On April 22, 2015, 12:38 p.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote: > > src/tests/master_validation_tests.cpp, line 249 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/32150/diff/5/?file=920956#file920956line249> > > > > const? here and below. These variables have been removed as per Jie's request. > On April 22, 2015, 12:38 p.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote: > > src/tests/master_validation_tests.cpp, line 314 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/32150/diff/5/?file=920956#file920956line314> > > > > You don't use `principal` in unreserve, is this comment valid then? As > > I have already mentioned, I would rather check for principal match though. As you point out, the 2 tests were actually functionally equivalent so I've collapsed them into one. See my comment above as for why we don't check the `principal` match. > On April 22, 2015, 12:38 p.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote: > > src/master/validation.cpp, lines 591-592 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/32150/diff/5/?file=920955#file920955line591> > > > > Shall we check framework and request principals are the same? No, at least not in the current specification. The `principal` indicates the `principal` of the operator or framework that reserved the resources, which means that we need to make sure that `Resource.Reservation.principal` and `FrameworkInfo.principal` matches for the `Reserve` operation. On `Unreserve`, we use the operator or framework's `principal` and the `principal` set on the `Resource` object in conjunction with the "unreserve" ACL to determine whether the unreserve operation is authorized. In the absense of an ACL, we allow anyone to unreserve any resources. This is a matter of authorization however, so we wouldn't check for the `prinicpal` matching in `validate` even with ACLs. - Michael ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/32150/#review81139 ----------------------------------------------------------- On April 27, 2015, 10:10 p.m., Michael Park wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/32150/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated April 27, 2015, 10:10 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Alexander Rukletsov, Ben Mahler, and Jie Yu. > > > Bugs: MESOS-2139 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2139 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Handled reservation operations in `Master::_accept`. > > Added `validate` functions in `src/master/validation.{hpp,cpp}`. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/master/master.cpp d42a6f321c88ec5d0418264bdda39d083ff54a7e > src/master/validation.hpp 2d7416c053f82d6316542fa9c35b0e7bc605abec > src/master/validation.cpp dc25995bf57397d42fcde458414f0402d19bf792 > src/tests/master_validation_tests.cpp > 4f2ad58c3ae0f611fb476c4d91a37dd6a5541395 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/32150/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > Michael Park > >
