> On Nov. 3, 2016, 10:39 p.m., Benjamin Mahler wrote:
> > src/tests/master_validation_tests.cpp, lines 346-348
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/52642/diff/2/?file=1544212#file1544212line346>
> >
> >     Have you gone through these tests? They also seem confusing. For 
> > example, this one says "framework with a principal" but it doesn't provide 
> > principal to the validate call. I would expect to see reservation principal 
> > vs framework principal, no?

The principal is part of the reservation:

`resource.mutable_reservation()->CopyFrom(createReservationInfo("principal"));`

I'm guessing that Mesos doesn't let a framework unreserve a resource that was 
not part of the offer?


- Gastón


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/52642/#review154824
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Nov. 4, 2016, 12:50 p.m., Gastón Kleiman wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/52642/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Nov. 4, 2016, 12:50 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Alexander Rukletsov and Michael Park.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-6142
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-6142
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Don't allow a reservation if the framework role doesn't match the role
> of all the resources.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/master/http.cpp 2f275f6c78b92e13bd7d38043b581b5a3555ee40 
>   src/master/master.cpp 013bb592ba47b785c552e199633e4784e8aa71b1 
>   src/master/validation.hpp 035f721c610ae566c89a1cf0e65ff0df11679f15 
>   src/master/validation.cpp f690a9eacd278b51a52f5588dbeea377df074435 
>   src/tests/master_validation_tests.cpp 
> a5d8610bd61822cdf55cbc8d7056e5cf8fecfa54 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/52642/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Gastón Kleiman
> 
>

Reply via email to