----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/64932/#review194780 -----------------------------------------------------------
Should we add this new framework to `src/tests/examples_tests.cpp`? src/examples/test_csi_user_framework.cpp Lines 83-84 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/64932/#comment273771> I see that this is also indented wrong in `test_http_framework.cpp`, but according to the style guide, the proper indentation would e: ``` HTTPScheduler( const FrameworkInfo& _framework, const string& _master) ``` src/examples/test_csi_user_framework.cpp Lines 90-92 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/64932/#comment273772> Ditto indentation. src/examples/test_csi_user_framework.cpp Lines 149 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/64932/#comment273773> This framework never starts tasks, so should we crash or log something saying that we don't expect to get task status updates? src/examples/test_csi_user_framework.cpp Lines 165-184 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/64932/#comment273774> This framework will never launch a task, so this is probably not needed. Furthermore it should probably crash if it receivres an executor failure... src/examples/test_csi_user_framework.cpp Lines 278 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/64932/#comment273786> I'd rephrase this: ``` Check whether the given resources are reserved, ensuring that all RAW/MOUNT disk resources offered by the resource provider are either reserved or unreserved. ``` Wouldn't this break if a resource provider offers both reserved and unreserved disk resources? I guess this will be usual once the agent's default disk resources (non-csi) are handled by an SLRP. src/examples/test_csi_user_framework.cpp Lines 279 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/64932/#comment273788> Why do you use an option here? Wouldn't `CHECK(!resources.isEmpty())` be clearer? src/examples/test_csi_user_framework.cpp Lines 302 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/64932/#comment273789> Use `endl` instead of `'\n'`. src/examples/test_csi_user_framework.cpp Lines 318 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/64932/#comment273790> Use `endl` instead of `'\n'`. src/examples/test_csi_user_framework.cpp Lines 331-332 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/64932/#comment273792> I'd phrase it: If we didn't create an `ACCEPT` operation, create a `DELCINE` operation. src/examples/test_csi_user_framework.cpp Lines 334 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/64932/#comment273793> Ditto `endl`. src/examples/test_csi_user_framework.cpp Lines 335 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/64932/#comment273794> Remove this line, the if statement ensures that no accept call was created. src/examples/test_csi_user_framework.cpp Lines 380-386 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/64932/#comment273795> This method doesn't seem to be used. `int main(...)` should probably call `Flags::setUsageMessage` instead of this. src/examples/test_csi_user_framework.cpp Lines 399 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/64932/#comment273796> Why don't we make this a `string` instead of an `Option<string>`? That way we could remove the: `if (flags.master.isNone())` block in the main function. src/examples/test_csi_user_framework.cpp Lines 444-447 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/64932/#comment273797> Shouldn't this be a flag like in `no_executor_framework.cpp` and in `long_lived_framework.cpp`? - Gaston Kleiman On Jan. 3, 2018, 2:50 p.m., Benjamin Bannier wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/64932/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Jan. 3, 2018, 2:50 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Greg Mann and Jie Yu. > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > This patch introduces an example HTTP framework which transforms > 'RAW' disk resources from resource providers into 'MOUNT' volumes and > subsequently unreserves them. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/Makefile.am 30cd4d426e797e4c8ee556d1bc3de99830a5fe41 > src/examples/CMakeLists.txt d4f1af4f072efdc68fa0b722f42b1d8aa1779b6e > src/examples/test_csi_user_framework.cpp PRE-CREATION > > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/64932/diff/1/ > > > Testing > ------- > > `make check` > > > Thanks, > > Benjamin Bannier > >
