> On April 29, 2015, 10:15 p.m., Jie Yu wrote: > > src/master/validation.cpp, line 575 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/32150/diff/8/?file=944524#file944524line575> > > > > This fits into the above line?
Fixed. > 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)`? > > Michael Park wrote: > > 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? Removed the `snake_case`, please let me know about the issue around passing a `bool` vs `Option<string>`. - Michael ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/32150/#review82045 ----------------------------------------------------------- On May 2, 2015, 12:27 a.m., Michael Park wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/32150/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated May 2, 2015, 12:27 a.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 > ----- > > include/mesos/resources.hpp 56affd45e1e71e96ff5778b43271f81b9b9a9e4d > 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 > >
