----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/42751/#review117698 -----------------------------------------------------------
Fix it, then Ship it! src/tests/resources_tests.cpp (line 957) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/42751/#comment178972> We used to have a `Resources::size()` function which essentially did this, but intentionally removed it so that people don't rely on number of `Resource` instances. Is there a reason why we want to check for this? Here and below. src/tests/resources_tests.cpp (line 1603) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/42751/#comment178973> Can we just add the (same role, different principal) case rather than replacing it with the (different role, different principal) case? For that matter, can we also add the (different role, same principal) case? This will be relevant once we have multi-role frameworks I think, right? - Michael Park On Feb. 3, 2016, 5:51 p.m., Neil Conway wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/42751/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Feb. 3, 2016, 5:51 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos and Michael Park. > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > We should check that two reservations with the same role but different > principals are considered distinct. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/tests/resources_tests.cpp 4b25e82c13e4f46c73803f773db90f269c09c48a > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/42751/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > Neil Conway > >
