> On Oct. 9, 2019, 2:17 p.m., Andrei Sekretenko wrote:
> > src/master/quota.cpp
> > Lines 72 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/71597/diff/1/?file=2168791#file2168791line72>
> >
> > Shouldn't we also adjust the code which handles the failure of this
> > registry operation?
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/mesos/blob/43bbe365db469d5e641d71f5884bd0fb1c012ea1/src/master/quota_handler.cpp#L575
> >
> > Something like
> > `
> > CHECK(result) << "Quota registry entry mutation should never fail"
> > `
> > would produce more descriptive error in case of a bug, IMO.
Good point, added:
```
CHECK(result)
<< "An invalid quota config was supplied to the registry "
<< JSON::protobuf(configs);
```
- Benjamin
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/71597/#review218157
-----------------------------------------------------------
On Oct. 9, 2019, 4:43 a.m., Benjamin Mahler wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/71597/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated Oct. 9, 2019, 4:43 a.m.)
>
>
> Review request for mesos, Andrei Sekretenko and Meng Zhu.
>
>
> Bugs: MESOS-10008
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-10008
>
>
> Repository: mesos
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> The registry operation for updating quota was assuming that
> the quota configs were valid. This validates them and fails
> the operation if invalid. Note that the caller should be
> validating this already, but this serves as an extra guard.
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> src/master/quota.cpp 4ecd3269ac092b187082675e723cb18e40cea573
>
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/71597/diff/1/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> Test added in subsequent patch.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Benjamin Mahler
>
>
