----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/63001/#review189354 -----------------------------------------------------------
include/mesos/mesos.proto Lines 2157 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/63001/#comment266369> s/status/statuses/ include/mesos/mesos.proto Lines 2157-2158 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/63001/#comment266370> Can we clarify here that this is an ordered list? include/mesos/mesos.proto Lines 2162 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/63001/#comment266372> s/framework specified/framework-specified/ s/id/ID/ ?? Here and below. include/mesos/mesos.proto Lines 2204 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/63001/#comment266394> Backticks instead of quotes here for consistency. include/mesos/resource_provider/resource_provider.proto Line 66 (original), 72 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/63001/#comment266396> Do you want to use `OFFER_OPERATION` here instead? Or, do you think it's OK to just use `OPERATION` since this is within the RP? Here and elsewhere. include/mesos/v1/mesos.proto Lines 2145 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/63001/#comment266392> I'm a little bit concerned that the names of the various IDs in this RR will become confusing for devs. We have: 1) `OfferOperationID`, with a field name of `operation_id` 2) `bytes uuid`, with a field name of `uuid` (this is the status update ID) 3) `bytes uuid`, with a field name of `operation_uuid` (this is our internal ID for the operation) What would you think about naming the fields `operation_id`, `operation_update_uuid`, and `operation_internal_uuid`, respectively? (could also just do `update_uuid` and `internal_uuid` for the latter two) Since the fields are in different messages, I'm not sure how bad this would really be, just a thought. Let me know what you think. include/mesos/v1/mesos.proto Lines 2185 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/63001/#comment266393> Backticks instead of quotes here for consistency. src/messages/messages.proto Lines 608-610 (original), 608-610 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/63001/#comment266402> Add a note about offer operations here? src/messages/messages.proto Lines 638 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/63001/#comment266401> s/update/updates/ - Greg Mann On Oct. 19, 2017, 12:08 a.m., Jie Yu wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/63001/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Oct. 19, 2017, 12:08 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Benjamin Bannier, Benjamin Mahler, Gaston Kleiman, > Greg Mann, Jan Schlicht, and Vinod Kone. > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Updated protobuf definitions related to offer operations. > > > Diffs > ----- > > include/mesos/mesos.proto 859fdff4d9a0604bc506b08af79075084ae23466 > include/mesos/resource_provider/resource_provider.proto > f5a9073075327019fd133bd51265f695ef464845 > include/mesos/v1/mesos.proto cfd4abd3af1d8c9fbd31659161eada9ec9f92282 > include/mesos/v1/resource_provider/resource_provider.proto > e5cbede5b6e57a8641fca1ebfee5454f292cc24c > src/messages/messages.proto 0a32b3457e9143a7d48670610ca3e56dd516136f > src/resource_provider/manager.cpp 31fcb789f5ab907511e868c374c49f7457a33ed3 > src/resource_provider/validation.cpp > d2927227f60ab0d4ae2481ad73a31ee444b48ee0 > src/tests/resource_provider_validation_tests.cpp > f182bff4670318e9de22c2915c5dbb423a74ad6c > > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/63001/diff/9/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > Jie Yu > >
