----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/57473/#review171379 -----------------------------------------------------------
src/authorizer/local/authorizer.cpp Lines 401 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/57473/#comment244272> "a specialized" src/authorizer/local/authorizer.cpp Lines 573 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/57473/#comment244273> Seems a bit inconsistent: we use `*(object->value)` elsewhere, but we omit the extra set of parentheses here. src/authorizer/local/authorizer.cpp Line 895 (original) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/57473/#comment244274> What do you think about splitting the `break` changes into a separate review? - Neil Conway On April 4, 2017, 9:21 a.m., Alexander Rojas wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/57473/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated April 4, 2017, 9:21 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Adam B and Benjamin Bannier. > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Adds mechanisms to support authorization of hierarchical roles, > that is, it allows operators to write ACLs of the form `role/%` > which will enforce the rule for any nested role, e.g. `role/a`, > `role/b` and such. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/authorizer/local/authorizer.cpp > e241edf4afa48d35dbbbb94d72e8e8690f5bedfc > > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/57473/diff/5/ > > > Testing > ------- > > `make check` > > > Thanks, > > Alexander Rojas > >
