> On April 29, 2015, 10:15 p.m., Jie Yu wrote: > > src/master/master.cpp, lines 2487-2492 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/32150/diff/8/?file=944522#file944522line2487> > > > > Why use a tmp variable here? Could you combine with validation below: > > ``` > > Option<Error> error = validation::operation::validate( > > operation.reserve(), > > framework->info.role(), > > (framework->info.has_principal() ? > > framework->info.principal() : > > Option<string>::none())); > > ```
I looked at that style and thought people would find it hard to read. But I can change it :) > On April 29, 2015, 10:15 p.m., Jie Yu wrote: > > src/master/validation.cpp, line 598 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/32150/diff/8/?file=944524#file944524line598> > > > > No snake_case please:) > > > > Also, instead of using a boolean, can you pass an Option<string> > > principal as you did in `validate(reserve)`? > No snake_case please:) Grr... the `snake_case` thing keeps getting me. I'll find a way to prevent myself from it and meanwhile be more attentive about it. > Also, instead of using a boolean, can you pass an Option<string> principal as > you did in validate(reserve)? I considered that as well to keep "consistent", but decided that (1) we don't pass `role` so we're not really consistent anyway, and (2) we'd be passing more information than we need while hindering readability at the callsite: ``` Option<Error> error = validation::operation::validate( operation.unreserve(), (framework->info.has_principal() ? framework->info.principal() : Option<string>::none())); ``` as well as within the function: "we pass an `Option<string>` but ever only perform presence tests on it via `isSome`, `isNone`, are we missing some logic?". I guess is that you have/had similar thoughts, but do you perhaps have strong reasons you would recommend passing `Option<string>` here? - Michael ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/32150/#review82045 ----------------------------------------------------------- On April 28, 2015, 10:43 p.m., Michael Park wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/32150/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated April 28, 2015, 10:43 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 > >
