-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/70546/#review214920
-----------------------------------------------------------


Ship it!




Ship It!

- Benno Evers


On April 25, 2019, 8:43 p.m., Joseph Wu wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/70546/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated April 25, 2019, 8:43 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Andrei Sekretenko, Benno Evers, and Greg Mann.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-9740
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-9740
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> As part of MESOS-6874, the master validates protobuf unions passed as
> part of an ExecutorInfo::ContainerInfo.  This prevents a task from
> specifying, for example, a ContainerInfo::MESOS, but filling
> out the docker field (which is then ignored by the agent).
> 
> This validation change is actually an API change, because previously
> runnable ExecutorInfo's and TaskInfo's will now fail validation.
> This has two visible effects on clusters:
>   * Agents running containers with invalid protobuf unions will not
>     be able to reregister with the master.
>   * Existing frameworks will not be able to re-launch the same tasks
>     that were working before a Mesos master upgrade.
> 
> This changes the validation to print a warning instead.  Where possible,
> the warning will provide some information to indicate which task
> or executor is sending the invalid protobuf.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/common/validation.cpp 458f2258cc5fb76e65e2988dd3ab8bb827b0ac2d 
>   src/master/validation.cpp d7f210fc1ed228113c7f97bce9a43916840b2252 
>   src/tests/master_validation_tests.cpp 
> c98f7517a1c29eea36f9a3c3da2cda1441967b77 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/70546/diff/2/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Joseph Wu
> 
>

Reply via email to