> On Jan. 25, 2016, 9:05 p.m., Neil Conway wrote:
> > src/common/resources.cpp, line 66
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/42733/diff/1/?file=1219795#file1219795line66>
> >
> >     This is actually correct as written, no? i.e., if principal isn't set, 
> > `principal()` will return the empty string. Since an empty string isn't a 
> > legal principle, the comparison should just work, I believe.

I believe we allow the empty string as a valid principal.


- Greg


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/42733/#review116166
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Jan. 25, 2016, 9:02 p.m., Greg Mann wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/42733/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Jan. 25, 2016, 9:02 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Jie Yu, Michael Park, and Neil Conway.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Added checks for presence of `ReservationInfo.principal`.
> 
> The `ReservationInfo.principal` field was recently made `optional`. During 
> the deprecation cycle, requests that do not have the field set are 
> invalidated and rejected. However, there remain a couple places in the code 
> that assume this field is always set. This patch uses `has_principal()` 
> before this field is accessed to ensure safety.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/common/resources.cpp 0fcf86014ab5c9908a1cdb3a57b7c5e70acd7737 
>   src/master/master.cpp 9ee56277c8a472be9e683d5db505becfb5f7c422 
>   src/v1/resources.cpp 126e5a2f567d2e281da3f99bc485f7960567eee5 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/42733/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> `make check`
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Greg Mann
> 
>

Reply via email to