> On Oct. 30, 2017, 10:21 a.m., Benjamin Bannier wrote: > > src/master/validation.cpp > > Lines 2279 (patched) > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/63355/diff/2/?file=1872373#file1872373line2279> > > > > Since the implementations of the validations for > > `CreateVolume/DestroyVolume` and `CreateBlock/DestroyBlock` are identical I > > wonder whether it makes sense to instead introduce two reusable basic > > validation functions instead of four. We could still expose four functions > > to users.
I'd punt that for now. Will revisit if the validation here becomes bigger. > On Oct. 30, 2017, 10:21 a.m., Benjamin Bannier wrote: > > src/master/validation.cpp > > Lines 2296-2297 (patched) > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/63355/diff/2/?file=1872373#file1872373line2296> > > > > I feel this would be better handled with a `switch` explicitly naming > > all understood types. I think this is easy to read comparing to a switch. - Jie ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/63355/#review189556 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Oct. 29, 2017, 3:47 p.m., Jie Yu wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/63355/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Oct. 29, 2017, 3:47 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Benjamin Bannier, Gaston Kleiman, Greg Mann, and > Jan Schlicht. > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > (This is based on https://reviews.apache.org/r/61946) > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/master/validation.hpp f4925752f20ae8ca4de1d9b4a3d5ffc394db9585 > src/master/validation.cpp 42f5742386b59a983f7caaf3400c82b7ef4f8bbb > src/tests/master_validation_tests.cpp > 7da1be5233444aded64263d4a763fe2967459042 > > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/63355/diff/2/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > Jie Yu > >
