-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/58305/#review172799
-----------------------------------------------------------




src/master/master.cpp
Lines 5574 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/58305/#comment245845>

    Can we make this consistent with the error message on initial registration 
in https://reviews.apache.org/r/58621 ?



src/master/validation.cpp
Lines 271 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/58305/#comment245848>

    Can you add a comment here explaining why we can't use 
`internal::validateResources`?



src/master/validation.cpp
Line 848 (original), 945 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/58305/#comment245847>

    I'd prefer `return None();` here.


- Neil Conway


On April 21, 2017, 4:56 p.m., James Peach wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/58305/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated April 21, 2017, 4:56 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Mesos Reviewbot and Neil Conway.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-7372
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-7372
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> The ReRegisterSlaveMessage message sends a number of fields which have
> internal consistency requirements. Add some simple validation checks
> to ensure that we have a minimally consistent re-registration request
> before proceeding.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/master/master.cpp d1cdc35a066e190ef8e0bd788e07e63b92f7fce7 
>   src/master/validation.hpp d96287de73ddb30ae2ed841c1b910b0ac6cfa74e 
>   src/master/validation.cpp 3f70875484bbd856ac79a7d6070ac313d69782fa 
>   src/tests/master_validation_tests.cpp 
> 555380870ae115004312cfbe9f145faa92049030 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/58305/diff/10/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Make check (Fedora 25). Internal fuzzing.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> James Peach
> 
>

Reply via email to