> On April 18, 2018, 2:51 p.m., Greg Mann wrote: > > docs/scheduler-http-api.md > > Lines 426-428 (patched) > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/66696/diff/1/?file=2005687#file2005687line426> > > > > This call requires the `Accept` header, right?
It technically doesn't require the header, but if one is set, it should contain json or protobuf. Anyway, I added the header here for consistency with the other examples. > On April 18, 2018, 2:51 p.m., Greg Mann wrote: > > docs/scheduler-http-api.md > > Lines 434-439 (patched) > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/66696/diff/1/?file=2005687#file2005687line434> > > > > Should we include the `resource_provider_id` field here, since the MVP > > is RP resource-only? Nope, the resource provider id field is not needed (and will be ignored) when reconciling operations. It is there for when we support ERPS. - Gaston ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/66696/#review201466 ----------------------------------------------------------- On April 18, 2018, 3:15 p.m., Gaston Kleiman wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/66696/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated April 18, 2018, 3:15 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos and Greg Mann. > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Updated Scheduler HTTP API doc for operation feedback. > > > Diffs > ----- > > docs/scheduler-http-api.md 3929c33781a152428338c4cdaf7dbc47da7c875e > > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/66696/diff/2/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Gaston Kleiman > >
