> On Nov. 13, 2017, 11:07 p.m., Greg Mann wrote:
> > src/slave/slave.cpp
> > Lines 3800-3803 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/63731/diff/1/?file=1888503#file1888503line3801>
> >
> >     Am I correct in thinking that we usually don't use quotes around IDs 
> > that we generate ourselves in Mesos? We may be able to remove the quotes 
> > around `operation_uuid` here.

I explicitly put quotes here since the `UUID` which probably comes from outside 
(i.e., a framework) could _not_ be deserialized which is suspicous. Makes 
sense? In any case I'll move this change to a separate RR, 
https://reviews.apache.org/r/63844/.


> On Nov. 13, 2017, 11:07 p.m., Greg Mann wrote:
> > src/slave/slave.cpp
> > Lines 3814 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/63731/diff/1/?file=1888503#file1888503line3815>
> >
> >     This currently assumes that all operation update acknowledgements are 
> > for terminal operation updates - is the plan to write it this way for now, 
> > and then update later if we add intermediate, non-terminal operation states?

I added a patch to remove that assumption, https://reviews.apache.org/r/63842/.


> On Nov. 13, 2017, 11:07 p.m., Greg Mann wrote:
> > src/slave/slave.cpp
> > Lines 6777 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/63731/diff/1/?file=1888503#file1888503line6778>
> >
> >     Note that in `addOfferOperation()`, we do `CHECK_SOME(uuid)` after 
> > grabbing `operation.operation_uuid`.
> >     
> >     I'm not sure that always checking the error case is necessary when the 
> > messages are generated by Mesos, but I mention it here because in the 
> > `offerOperationUpdateAcknowledgement` handler, you're performing an `if 
> > (operationUuid.isError())` check on a UUID out of a message from master, so 
> > the treatment of errors seems inconsistent.

These `UUID`s come from us (a resource provider) while above `UUID` came from a 
framework. I think that justifies the differing treatment.


- Benjamin


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/63731/#review190887
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Nov. 15, 2017, 6:31 p.m., Benjamin Bannier wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/63731/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Nov. 15, 2017, 6:31 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Greg Mann, Jie Yu, and Jan Schlicht.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-8207
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-8207
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> When resource providers update their state they send a list of
> pending or unacknowledged operations to the agent. This patch add
> tracking for such operations to the agent. The agent can then forward
> these operations to the master, e.g., for calculating the unused
> resources behind an agent.
> 
> We track an operation until we either receive a updated list of
> pending or unacknowledged operations from a resource provider, or
> until we see an acknowledgement from a framework. This keeps the list
> of operations bounded and ensures that we maintain the latest
> information in the agent.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/slave/slave.cpp d8bacebc74790e955490a158c37ac0d9e75fd6b5 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/63731/diff/2/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> `make check`, still need to implement dedicated tests.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Benjamin Bannier
> 
>

Reply via email to