----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/60282/#review178535 -----------------------------------------------------------
src/common/resources_utils.cpp Lines 271 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/60282/#comment252576> Should we put `validate` in the name, e.g., `validateAndUpgradeResources`? As currently named, the fact that it does validation is not obvious. Also, the current name suggests it is symmetric with `downgradeResources`, which is not quite true. src/common/resources_utils.cpp Lines 274 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/60282/#comment252583> Hmmm -- this means that we're going to validate most resources twice in most code paths, right? That seems unfortunate, although I guess it isn't easy to avoid. - Neil Conway On June 21, 2017, 7:07 p.m., Michael Park wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/60282/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated June 21, 2017, 7:07 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos and Neil Conway. > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Validation code for operations, and tasks validated the resources as > the first step, and assumed valid resources from then on. This means > that it started to use functions such as `isDynamicallyReserved`. > > However, since `isDynamicallyReserved` requires the resources to be > in the "post-reservation-refinement" format, we must convert the > resources before using those functions. For now, we introduce > a `upgradeResources` abstraction which is called to validate and > convert the resources before invoking operation / task validation. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/common/resources_utils.hpp 4b033687fa7224ffa36523cb3ca366f4384fd4f8 > src/common/resources_utils.cpp 751194c5ff5c794c77be3bcf16892af39de6d4d9 > > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/60282/diff/1/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Michael Park > >
