> On Aug. 20, 2015, 7:39 p.m., Marco Massenzio wrote:
> > include/mesos/scheduler/scheduler.proto, lines 314-315
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/37532/diff/1/?file=1042006#file1042006line314>
> >
> >     This comments does not read well: what is the timeout? also, it would 
> > be good to have a bit of info about what the filters are
> >     
> >     (eg, are they 'inclusion' or 'exclusion' filters? etc.)
> 
> Guangya Liu wrote:
>     Marco, can you pls show more the difference between "inclusion" and 
> "exclusion" filters? I'm not quite catch this point. Thanks.

Well, I am assuming that the `filters` here will take a conditional action 
based on a `Predicate`? (I am sorry, I don't really know what the `Filters` are 
for here - this was part of what I was asking for more documentation about this 
- please assume that the reader may not have access to all the source code - 
this is certainly true for people using Java bindings, who only usually look at 
the javadoc).

So, if you have method `foo()` that takes some `filters` to take some `action` 
on a given set of objects - the filters are "inclusive" if they will result in 
`action` being taken only on those objects for which `Predicate(Object) == 
true` - "exclusion" filters will instead **not** take action under the same 
circumstance.

Think of it as `-v` in `grep` :)


> On Aug. 20, 2015, 7:39 p.m., Marco Massenzio wrote:
> > src/tests/scheduler_tests.cpp, line 1003
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/37532/diff/1/?file=1042011#file1042011line1003>
> >
> >     so, this is a good test, but I would really like to see one where we 
> > ask Master to keep quiet for a while and we don't get offers during that 
> > period of time, then we start getting again.
> >     
> >     It may require some fiddling around with `Clock`s and all that jazz, 
> > but it would give us more confidence that this whole thing works.
> >     
> >     Also - some tests around more complex filtering (if any? maybe this is 
> > there is, then it's fine).
> 
> Guangya Liu wrote:
>     I'm planning to add more test cases in another patch, make sense? Thanks.

Ok - so long as the patches are related and will be committed together.
Please make sure to mark them accordingly.


- Marco


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/37532/#review95997
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Aug. 31, 2015, 1:23 a.m., Guangya Liu wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/37532/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Aug. 31, 2015, 1:23 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos and Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-3037
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-3037
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> This is just part of MESOS-3037, this patch only add the interface
> of QUIESCE call.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   include/mesos/scheduler.hpp ee198b6955882f4f31466ca05429ca16fbf2f5cd 
>   include/mesos/scheduler/scheduler.proto 
> 89daf8a6b74057ee156b3ad691397e76fcb835b8 
>   src/master/master.hpp 36c67599ef2c470da8d95f2caf926a154342d2cc 
>   src/master/master.cpp 95207d24db0aa052eb70c4cc7eb75d0611c365cf 
>   src/sched/sched.cpp 012af0508eeceeccd168b29f36fa258d20b28c21 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/37532/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Guangya Liu
> 
>

Reply via email to