----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/66938/#review202446 -----------------------------------------------------------
src/sched/sched.cpp Lines 1349 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/66938/#comment284269> Do we really need to `return` here? It seems just dropping this particular operation would be enough (in addition to calling `error` with all its side-effects). I am especially wondering about the tracking of operations. (With a `CHECK` the expected behavior would be simpler, not saying we should prefer it). - Benjamin Bannier On May 4, 2018, 1:14 a.m., Greg Mann wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/66938/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated May 4, 2018, 1:14 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Benjamin Bannier, Gaston Kleiman, Jan Schlicht, and > Vinod Kone. > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Since the 'SchedulerDriver' does not support operation status updates, > this patch adds a check to the driver which will abort the scheduler > if the 'id' field is set in an offer operation. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/sched/sched.cpp 620a3b26d8bf3487b6ce922b2280be7da291df06 > > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/66938/diff/2/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > Greg Mann > >
