> On Oct. 26, 2017, 10:49 p.m., Greg Mann wrote: > > include/mesos/resource_provider/resource_provider.proto > > Line 66 (original), 72 (patched) > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/63001/diff/9/?file=1863089#file1863089line72> > > > > 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.
Yeah, I'll use OFFER_OPERATION consistently. > On Oct. 26, 2017, 10:49 p.m., Greg Mann wrote: > > include/mesos/v1/mesos.proto > > Lines 2145 (patched) > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/63001/diff/9/?file=1863090#file1863090line2145> > > > > 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. In `Offer.Operation`, the field is `id`, which reads well because the context is clear. In `OfferOperationStatus`, it's `operation_id`, which also makes sense to me because we might have different `id` in that message. In `OfferOperation`, it's `operation_uuid`. The reason for `operation_` prefix is because there are `framework_id` in the message. Adding a prefix makes the context more clear (similar to above). So each offer operation has a `id` (specified by the framework) and a `uuid` which is generated by the master. I agree with you that `uuid` in `OfferOperationStatus` is a bit confusing. How about renaming it to `status_uuid`? - Jie ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/63001/#review189354 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Oct. 27, 2017, 12:58 p.m., Jie Yu wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/63001/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Oct. 27, 2017, 12:58 p.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/10/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > Jie Yu > >
