-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/34529/#review85890
-----------------------------------------------------------

Ship it!


Mark, thanks for your contribution! I've left a couple of comments below 
regarding the test, but the option code looks good to me!


3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/tests/option_tests.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/34529/#comment137730>

    Is the intent to test a non-const (mutable) Option? or is it to test the 
ability to take a non-const reference of the element inside the Option?
    
    If former, can we name this test `NonConst`, or `Mutable` instead?
    
    If latter, can we get rid of the const-ref bits in the tests since it 
doesn't test what it says it'll test?



3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/tests/option_tests.cpp
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/34529/#comment137729>

    Can we also add a `EXPECT_EQ("test:non-const reference", s.get());` to make 
sure that the contents in `s` actually changed? This test would pass even if I 
were to make `string& nonConstRefernce` be `string nonConstReference`, for 
example.


for

- Michael Park


On May 31, 2015, 1:13 a.m., Mark Wang wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/34529/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated May 31, 2015, 1:13 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos and Joris Van Remoortere.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-2716
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2716
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Add non-const reference version of Option<T>::get.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/option.hpp 
> ea79b501d9ed7b7da9636ce9c9c590738a586993 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/tests/option_tests.cpp 
> 7ae3b8ffc5df7f8442e72b1a10d50c3f5c373d8c 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/34529/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mark Wang
> 
>

Reply via email to