> On May 24, 2017, 6:36 a.m., Michael Park wrote: > > src/tests/hierarchical_allocator_tests.cpp > > Lines 5500-5501 (patched) > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/59383/diff/1/?file=1724192#file1724192line5500> > > > > Is this intentional? > > > > It seems like it is. As in, `used` is not supposed to be accumulated. > > > > Is so, can we just do > > > > ``` > > hashmap<FrameworkID, Resources> used { > > {frameworks[i % frameworkCount].id(), allocation} > > }; > > ``` > > > > so that the intentions is clearer? > > or even just pass it inline.
Seems fine to me, although I was just copying-and-pasting existing benchmark code. I cleaned this up in a separate review: https://reviews.apache.org/r/59538/ - Neil ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/59383/#review175903 ----------------------------------------------------------- On May 23, 2017, 6:33 a.m., Neil Conway wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/59383/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated May 23, 2017, 6:33 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Benjamin Mahler, James Peach, Michael Park, and > Jiang Yan Xu. > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > This covers the case where the vast majority (99%) of frameworks have > suppressed offers. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/tests/hierarchical_allocator_tests.cpp > 6dee2296d5a14185dbf7eee17968b20148839bfd > > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/59383/diff/1/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Neil Conway > >
