-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/60566/#review179465
-----------------------------------------------------------



The summary / description on this one had me confused. It took me awhile to 
grasp the change since it's touching the v0 API, and the v1 API is touched via 
the shared code between v0 and v1. Can you make it a little more clear for 
those that don't have context and are looking at the diff? At first glance I 
was tripped up because the bulk of the diff is changing v0 logic.

Code looks good, didn't get through all of the tests yet.


src/master/http.cpp
Line 1123 (original), 1114 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/60566/#comment254175>

    This should probably be called normalize? Since its goal is to get the 
resources into the single format, however it has to do it? As it stands it 
seems to suggest the input is necessarily an old version that needs to be 
upgraded?


- Benjamin Mahler


On June 30, 2017, 12:56 p.m., Michael Park wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/60566/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated June 30, 2017, 12:56 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos and Benjamin Mahler.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> See summary.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/master/http.cpp 4dd43fd7c3fb986f4eed78bce574b6d3af156b67 
>   src/master/master.hpp 9dd6a530c373516dc81bfd51ee6e95f25588148f 
>   src/tests/master_tests.cpp cfb799fd105e9880cd56415b2a84e604c8f62703 
>   src/tests/persistent_volume_endpoints_tests.cpp 
> 518bdf858096ec9bcfa4f899ead5a6c3d103c521 
>   src/tests/reservation_endpoints_tests.cpp 
> f710a188a7875c1cb847e39276b4b65332703ca5 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/60566/diff/1/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Added new tests + `make check`
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Michael Park
> 
>

Reply via email to