> On Feb. 3, 2016, 10:45 p.m., Michael Park wrote:
> > src/tests/resources_tests.cpp, line 957
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/42751/diff/2/?file=1231620#file1231620line957>
> >
> >     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.

The # of `Resource` instances is part of the public API of `Resources` (e.g., 
clients can iterate over every `Resource`). If it is part of the public API, it 
seems like something it would be worth testing.

In this particular case, it doesn't matter that much, but in other test cases 
(e.g., `AdditionDynamicallyReservedWithDistinctLabels`) it seems useful to 
check.


> On Feb. 3, 2016, 10:45 p.m., Michael Park wrote:
> > src/tests/resources_tests.cpp, line 1603
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/42751/diff/2/?file=1231620#file1231620line1603>
> >
> >     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?

Sure thing. At some point it probably doesn't make sense to test the entire 
cross-product of different resource properties, but for now it should be fine.


- Neil


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/42751/#review117698
-----------------------------------------------------------


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
> 
>

Reply via email to