> On Nov. 25, 2015, 5:01 a.m., Michael Park wrote: > > src/tests/persistent_volume_endpoints_tests.cpp, lines 159-162 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/40247/diff/6/?file=1137474#file1137474line159> > > > > I would suggest that we reorder these since we expect `registered` to > > occur before `resourceOffers`. Although functionally, it should have no > > difference. > > > > Occurences below as well.
Sounds good. Actually I just copied this code from reservation_endpoints_test.cpp :) So I'll fix similar code there, in a separate review. > On Nov. 25, 2015, 5:01 a.m., Michael Park wrote: > > src/master/http.cpp, line 541 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/40247/diff/6/?file=1137470#file1137470line541> > > > > I feel like this could be taken as "remove/filter the disk resources" > > rather than "remove the DiskInfo portion of each resource" :( > > > > I thought maybe `removeVolumes` but I think that has the same issue as > > before. I also think we should keep in mind that we may introduce an alias > > for, and deprecate `flatten`. > > > > Another one would be `removeDiskInfos` to be more indicative that the > > `DiskInfo` portion of the `Resource`s are being removed, but then the alias > > for `flatten` would end up as something like, > > `removeRolesAndReservationInfos`... > > > > This brings me to maybe declaring the state in which this resource is > > being transformed into. Something like... `makeRegularDisk` and > > `makeUnreserved`? > > > > What do you think? I vote for `removeDiskInfos()`, since it is an improvement. If/when we want to rename `flatten()` we can always revisit this -- since `removeDiskInfos` is private anyway, it should be easy to rename. > On Nov. 25, 2015, 5:01 a.m., Michael Park wrote: > > docs/persistent-volume.md, line 248 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/40247/diff/6/?file=1137467#file1137467line248> > > > > It looks pretty clear that we allow the creation and destruction of > > multiple volumes via these endpoints. Should we call them `create-volumes` > > and `destroy-volumes` respectively? Yeah, I suppose that is better. I guess it a bit weird that you can't create multiple volumes in the general case (i.e., you can only create n volumes on a single agent, not n volumes in general), but I suppose that is okay. - Neil ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/40247/#review107913 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Nov. 23, 2015, 5:06 p.m., Neil Conway wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/40247/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Nov. 23, 2015, 5:06 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Greg Mann and Michael Park. > > > Bugs: MESOS-2455 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2455 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Added HTTP endpoints for creating and destroying persistent volumes. > > > Diffs > ----- > > docs/persistent-volume.md 0951ccb69daaa19b959e11cf3bf972a674a58305 > docs/reservation.md 81f21c3755b216b0932876c1ddd9de4d3fbe814a > src/Makefile.am 8d14ff803249b5b81b696d40d37e013960dee41b > src/master/http.cpp 1c4f1406f5d917f5d655a7d61d311365f8999ce0 > src/master/master.hpp d4b1edde98925fd51e056f253758afea779be9ed > src/master/master.cpp d2bc83cd77ae7fe723ccb35a7c1e0b70a04a0d6e > src/tests/mesos.hpp b3f69ccb9870b17a335a2fe7dbf2802c1b709e6b > src/tests/persistent_volume_endpoints_tests.cpp PRE-CREATION > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/40247/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > (1) make check, including newly added tests > > (2) Manually created/removed persistent volumes via HTTP endpoints + curl. > > (3) Previewed docs in Github gist. > > > Thanks, > > Neil Conway > >
