----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/70549/#review215073 -----------------------------------------------------------
include/mesos/authorizer/authorizer.proto Lines 142-143 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/70549/#comment301473> An alternative would have been to stick with UPDATE_QUOTA and look for whichever of quota_info and quota_config is set. After thinking about it, I'm guessing we don't want to do that since third party code is looking at these protos and might behave badly with the missing field..? Whereas it would fail more clearly with an unknown Action enum value? Perhaps we can spell this out so it's clear in the code and description? - Benjamin Mahler On April 25, 2019, 11:23 p.m., Meng Zhu wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/70549/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated April 25, 2019, 11:23 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Andrei Sekretenko and Benjamin Mahler. > > > Bugs: MESOS-9640 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-9640 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > A new authorizable action `update_quota_configs` is added. > This disambiguates with the old action `update_quota` > which are used for the old `SetQuota` and > `RemoveQuota` calls. > > > Diffs > ----- > > include/mesos/authorizer/authorizer.proto > e2740c402732bb37db991ec92b9301e58b33215b > src/master/master.hpp 7d9732f1e432f6f0290d234242864cbdbf381fa8 > src/master/quota_handler.cpp 5d449e6f027a69ccaa0ac3473ea4cf57441601f3 > > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/70549/diff/1/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > > Thanks, > > Meng Zhu > >
