> On April 14, 2018, 1:52 a.m., Chun-Hung Hsiao wrote:
> > src/master/validation.cpp
> > Lines 2336 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/66050/diff/8/?file=1994612#file1994612line2336>
> >
> >     For consistency, I prefer just `"Invalid resource: "`.
> >     
> >     Or if you want to make it explicit, maybe:
> >     `"Invalid resource in the 'volume' field: "`, or
> >     `Invalid resource in the 'GrowVolume.volume' field: "`.
> >     
> >     Ditto below for 'addition':
> >     `"Invalid resource: "`, or
> >     `"Invalid additional resource: "`, or
> >     `"Invalid resource in the 'addition' field: "`, or
> >     `"Invalid resource in the 'GrowVolume.addition' field: "`.
> >     
> >     Note that I use `GrowVolume` instead of `grow_volume` since there is no 
> > guarantee that the field being validated by this funciton is called 
> > `grow_volume`.

Reopened this issue because of `grow_volume` in the error message. Please leave 
your thoughts if you have objections. Thanks!


> On April 14, 2018, 1:52 a.m., Chun-Hung Hsiao wrote:
> > src/master/validation.cpp
> > Lines 2387 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/66050/diff/8/?file=1994612#file1994612line2387>
> >
> >     Similar to the reason I mentioned above, let's do either of the 
> > followings:
> >     
> >     `"Invalid resource: "`
> >     `"Invalid resource in the 'volume' field: "`
> >     `Invalid resource in the 'ShrinkVolume.volume' field: "`

Reopened this issue because of `shrink_volume` in the error message.


- Chun-Hung


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/66050/#review201150
-----------------------------------------------------------


On April 16, 2018, 5:09 p.m., Zhitao Li wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/66050/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated April 16, 2018, 5:09 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Chun-Hung Hsiao, Gaston Kleiman, and Greg Mann.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-4965
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-4965
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> The new offer operations are implemented as speculative operations, but
> we will use validation to make them non-speculative on API level so that
> we can transition later without a breaking change.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/common/protobuf_utils.cpp 141a444534b776a2c90e2a0daf9727cd21e39080 
>   src/common/resources_utils.cpp 9be01c1abd48264e308960f35cc7c2ee8a367518 
>   src/master/master.cpp 767ad8cfe142b47ef07172bcb2a4fb49fc3e833a 
>   src/master/validation.hpp 7c129ceb929596acbb64d37025e055661277e6bf 
>   src/master/validation.cpp ac2e1bb8771841ec59b3bdcdeffb6c6230680d4d 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/66050/diff/10/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Zhitao Li
> 
>

Reply via email to