> On May 4, 2018, 2:45 p.m., Benjamin Bannier wrote:
> > src/sched/sched.cpp
> > Lines 1349 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/66938/diff/2/?file=2016633#file2016633line1349>
> >
> >     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).

I switched back to aborting the process directly rather than calling error() - 
while this means we must eliminate the relevant test, it seems to make a bit 
more sense for the framework developer I think. It also matches what we do in a 
similar case, where the framework attempts to acknowledge a status update 
explicitly after implicit acknowledgement has been enabled.


- Greg


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/66938/#review202446
-----------------------------------------------------------


On May 4, 2018, 11:20 p.m., Greg Mann wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/66938/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated May 4, 2018, 11:20 p.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 
>   src/tests/scheduler_tests.cpp 749420a23bc1a3873bd4d5aee56e78cff79bb1af 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/66938/diff/3/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Greg Mann
> 
>

Reply via email to