----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/69163/#review210695 -----------------------------------------------------------
src/master/master.cpp Lines 8192-8201 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/69163/#comment295419> We can get rid of this snippet and simply use `providerId`. Or, validate that `resourceProviderId` is always the same as `providerId`. We should probably validate that both resources and operations have their resource provider id set properly in the resource provider manager, and issue an `ERROR` event back to the resource provider, instead of crashing the agent: https://github.com/apache/mesos/blob/master/src/resource_provider/manager.cpp#L907 I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-9407 to capture this. No need to address it in this patch. src/master/master.cpp Lines 8199 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/69163/#comment295427> How about inlining this ternary operation into the use below so we can get rid of `resourceProviderId_`? src/resource_provider/manager.cpp Lines 887-888 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/69163/#comment295431> It seems not cohesive that we include both the agent ID and the resource provider ID when generating the `UpdateOperationStatusMessage` in SLRP, but drop them because `Call::UpdateOperationStatus` does not have corresponding fields, then: 1. Recover the resource provider ID in the RP manager, and 2. Recover the agent ID in `Slave::handleResourceProviderMessage`. I was wondering if it is a good idea to add `slave_id` and `resource_provider_id` in `OperationStatus` instead, then generate `OperationStatusUpdateMessage` based on `OperationStatus` for backward compatibility. src/resource_provider/storage/provider.cpp Line 3079 (original), 3080-3081 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/69163/#comment295426> We don't need to set up the slave ID and resource provider ID since dropped operations will not be bookkept and retried. src/slave/slave.cpp Lines 4386 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/69163/#comment295428> How about inlining the ternary operation into its use below so we don't need this `resourceProviderId_`? src/tests/master_tests.cpp Lines 9036 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/69163/#comment295432> We might want to backport this patch back to 1.7.x. Can you split the tests into another patch so we can minimize the backport? src/tests/master_tests.cpp Lines 9038 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/69163/#comment295433> Since the resource provider manager is the one adding the resource provider ID, does it make sense to move this test to `resource_provider_manager_tests.cpp`? If we make the decision to add `slave_id` and `resource_provider_id` in `OperationStatus` and make the SLRP generates them, we should move this test to `storage_local_resource_provider_tests.cpp`. src/tests/master_tests.cpp Lines 9066-9070 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/69163/#comment295429> Nit: they fit into a line. ;) - Chun-Hung Hsiao On Nov. 12, 2018, 8:49 p.m., Benjamin Bannier wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/69163/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Nov. 12, 2018, 8:49 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Chun-Hung Hsiao, Gastón Kleiman, and James DeFelice. > > > Bugs: MESOS-9293 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-9293 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > This patch sets agent and/or resource provider ID operation status > update messages. This is not always possible, e.g., some operations > might fail validation so that no corresponding IDs can be extracted. > > Since operations failing validation are currently directly rejected by > the master without going through a status update manager, they are not > retried either. If a master status update manager for operations is > introduced at a later point it should be possible to forward > acknowledgements for updates to the master's update manager (no agent > ID, not resource provider ID). > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/common/protobuf_utils.hpp 1662125ed3e47b179ee32d08c1d3af75553066ba > src/common/protobuf_utils.cpp a45607eed4c4bae5010bcc3f3ffeabd6d911062a > src/master/master.cpp 1e326ec42a7f79a0835529a4655e7ec272f1cf40 > src/resource_provider/manager.cpp 6c81c430e9e1205d71982a7fa2bcd9aa15fc01b2 > src/resource_provider/storage/provider.cpp > c137fa4f13edc58d93c03a9dd32fdf9d38b38316 > src/slave/slave.cpp 74f6fb9036a9ac4f587f53ec2df04eeb4c167bfb > src/tests/master_tests.cpp ac6bf379c5906cf9612284911c121c9457f648a0 > > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/69163/diff/3/ > > > Testing > ------- > > `make check` > > > Thanks, > > Benjamin Bannier > >
