----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/56753/#review168169 -----------------------------------------------------------
Fix it, then Ship it! 3rdparty/libprocess/Makefile.am Line 154 (original), 154 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/56753/#comment240324> We should probably keep 'authenticator.cpp', just for the Principal-related implementations which were recently added: `json(JSON::ObjectWriter*, const Principal&)` and `operator<<(std::ostream&, const Principal&)`. It seems a bit strange to have those in 'basic_authenticator.cpp'? 3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/authenticator.hpp Lines 160 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/56753/#comment240325> s/withn/within/ 3rdparty/libprocess/src/jwt_authenticator.cpp Lines 73-78 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/56753/#comment240332> Need `return result;` here. 3rdparty/libprocess/src/jwt_authenticator.cpp Lines 106 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/56753/#comment240333> Is the `Option<string>::none()` necessary here? I think the `value` member should be default-initialized to `NONE`? 3rdparty/libprocess/src/jwt_authenticator.cpp Lines 126-144 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/56753/#comment240329> Looks like a more standard practice would be to use `process_.get()` rather than `*process_`, in all 4 occurrences here. I see that the `BasicAuthenticator` also uses `*process`, but using `.get()` will be more consistent with the rest of the codebase, as it looks like the `BasicAuthenticator` is the only occurrence of the `*process` syntax. They are functionally equivalent (modulo the presence of a `CHECK_NOTNULL` in the spawn case, which is unnecessary here I'd say). 3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/http_tests.cpp Lines 2042-2043 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/56753/#comment240330> Fits on one line. 3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/http_tests.cpp Lines 2070 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/56753/#comment240334> Is the `Option<string>::none()` necessary here? I think the `value` member should be default-initialized to `NONE`? - Greg Mann On March 7, 2017, 3:36 p.m., Jan Schlicht wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/56753/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated March 7, 2017, 3:36 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Alexander Rojas and Greg Mann. > > > Bugs: MESOS-7001 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-7001 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > This HTTP authenticator extracts a JWT from the requests' authorization > header using the 'Bearer' schema and validates it against a secret using > HMAC SHA256. The 'sub' claim of the JWT is the extracted principal, all > other claims will be additional labels of the 'Principal'. > > > Diffs > ----- > > 3rdparty/libprocess/Makefile.am 75386184108214e67a58c328258ec204099d638c > 3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/authenticator.hpp > 00660f42cd4b707d955745bbfea5ffec73f690d6 > 3rdparty/libprocess/src/authenticator.cpp > 3rdparty/libprocess/src/jwt_authenticator.cpp PRE-CREATION > 3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/http_tests.cpp > a0e23c2300f9f6b9d1143ee1eb115bbf24adf92e > > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/56753/diff/5/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > Jan Schlicht > >
