enerated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/60784/#review180384
---
On July 11, 2017, 10:29 p.m., Neil Conway wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail.
55d493e89114acc94b1524f3f94a47ccea20469a
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/60784/diff/1/
Testing
---
`make check`
I tried to write a unit test for this specific problem but wasn't able to repro
:-\ Current coding seems wrong / inconsistent in any case, though.
Thanks,
Neil Conway
---
`make check`
Manual testing.
Thanks,
Neil Conway
/slave_recovery_tests.cpp f6eafcbe3d89c7a69c03db0fd7bc10ae73d06584
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/59766/diff/6/
Changes: https://reviews.apache.org/r/59766/diff/5-6/
Testing
---
`make check`.
Thanks,
Neil Conway
/mesos.cpp 423510ef14025dba208ef85edf5305c2ce58f01d
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/59762/diff/5/
Changes: https://reviews.apache.org/r/59762/diff/4-5/
Testing
---
`make check`
Thanks,
Neil Conway
/slave_recovery_tests.cpp f6eafcbe3d89c7a69c03db0fd7bc10ae73d06584
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/59766/diff/5/
Changes: https://reviews.apache.org/r/59766/diff/4-5/
Testing
---
`make check`.
Thanks,
Neil Conway
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/59761/diff/4/
Changes: https://reviews.apache.org/r/59761/diff/3-4/
Testing
---
`make check`
Thanks,
Neil Conway
)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/60346/#comment254563>
We don't support the "strict-registry" flag anymore, so I removed the
reference to this before committing.
- Neil Conway
On June 21, 2017, 10:17 p.m., Gast
423510ef14025dba208ef85edf5305c2ce58f01d
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/59762/diff/4/
Changes: https://reviews.apache.org/r/59762/diff/3-4/
Testing
---
`make check`
Thanks,
Neil Conway
://reviews.apache.org/r/59921/diff/2/
Changes: https://reviews.apache.org/r/59921/diff/1-2/
Testing
---
`make check`
Thanks,
Neil Conway
k`
Manual testing.
Thanks,
Neil Conway
/slave_recovery_tests.cpp f6eafcbe3d89c7a69c03db0fd7bc10ae73d06584
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/59766/diff/4/
Changes: https://reviews.apache.org/r/59766/diff/3-4/
Testing
---
`make check`.
Thanks,
Neil Conway
/diff/3-4/
Testing
---
`make check`
Thanks,
Neil Conway
/r/59763/diff/2-3/
Testing
---
`make check`
Manual testing.
Thanks,
Neil Conway
f/2/
Changes: https://reviews.apache.org/r/59759/diff/1-2/
Testing
---
`make check`
Thanks,
Neil Conway
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/59761/diff/3/
Changes: https://reviews.apache.org/r/59761/diff/2-3/
Testing
---
`make check`
Thanks,
Neil Conway
/
Testing
---
`make check`
Thanks,
Neil Conway
---
Updated comments and help text in mesos-execute.
Diffs
-
src/cli/execute.cpp 58eaa47bf8388424fd42f7830fdbb7cdecbebb7b
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/60417/diff/1/
Testing
---
Visual inspection of help output.
Thanks,
Neil Conway
://reviews.apache.org/r/60416/diff/1/
Testing
---
`make check`, manual testing.
Thanks,
Neil Conway
---
Added comment to master logic for downgrading checkpointed resources.
Diffs
-
src/master/master.cpp 33eca0d17459781fdc2ea915e8f40c78dd306962
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/60415/diff/1/
Testing
---
Thanks,
Neil Conway
added `TODO`s to note
this for future improvement.
- Neil
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/60407/#review178836
-----
,
Neil Conway
ve.cpp f808458849bb9667a91abe18868751d377d36e0c
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/60405/diff/3/
Changes: https://reviews.apache.org/r/60405/diff/2-3/
Testing
---
Thanks,
Neil Conway
sources, but that is fine and expected. Should we really be cluttering the
logs with this information?
- Neil
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/60405/#review178834
---
On June 24, 2017, 1:48 a.m., Neil Conwa
ould we really be cluttering the
logs with this information?
- Neil Conway
On June 24, 2017, 1:48 a.m., Neil Conway wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
it is best-effort anyway, this seems tolerable.
Diffs (updated)
-
src/master/validation.cpp 33e9ff7db9e2789cbb2d6dfd015288dfa1faa7c5
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/60407/diff/2/
Changes: https://reviews.apache.org/r/60407/diff/1-2/
Testing
---
`make check`
Thanks,
Neil Conway
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/60404/diff/2/
Changes: https://reviews.apache.org/r/60404/diff/1-2/
Testing
---
Thanks,
Neil Conway
d36e0c
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/60405/diff/2/
Changes: https://reviews.apache.org/r/60405/diff/1-2/
Testing
---
Thanks,
Neil Conway
/validation.cpp 33e9ff7db9e2789cbb2d6dfd015288dfa1faa7c5
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/60407/diff/1/
Testing
---
`make check`
Thanks,
Neil Conway
Testing
---
Thanks,
Neil Conway
---
Documented resource format in agent <-> master protocol.
Diffs
-
src/messages/messages.proto 2c086263fdcee4d54a76a61379c2d4dba5271d23
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/60405/diff/1/
Testing
---
Thanks,
Neil Conway
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/60404/diff/1/
Testing
---
Thanks,
Neil Conway
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/60351/#review178758
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Neil Conway
On June 22, 2017, 12:08 a.m
to commit message.
- Neil Conway
On June 22, 2017, 12:32 a.m., Michael Park wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache
(patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/60283/#comment252927>
We use `EXPECT_EQ` in the other tests here.
- Neil Conway
On June 22, 2017, 10:22 p.m., Michael Park wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/60284/#review178752
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Neil Conway
On June 21, 2017, 7:08 p.m
tests for this -- similar
to `CreateOperationValidationTest.AgentHierarchicalRoleCapability`
- Neil Conway
On June 20, 2017, 11:58 p.m., Michael Park wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit
g/r/60283/#comment252920>
"an UNRESERVE"
src/tests/master_tests.cpp
Lines 7407 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/60283/#comment252922>
"we test"
- Neil Conway
On June 21, 2017, 7:08 p.m., Michael Park wrote:
>
> -
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/60374/#review178743
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Neil Conway
On June 22, 2017, 7:09 p.m
---
`make check`, ran ~5k iterations w/o error.
Thanks,
Neil Conway
)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/60281/#comment252901>
This comment needs updating.
- Neil Conway
On June 21, 2017, 7:06 p.m., Michael Park wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply,
)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/60374/#comment252897>
Can we add a comment explaining why these are `CHECK`s?
- Neil Conway
On June 22, 2017, 7:09 p.m., Michael Park wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail.
ched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/60283/#comment252856>
Whitespace.
src/tests/master_tests.cpp
Lines 7202 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/60283/#comment252857>
Can we remove this? Seems irrelevant to the test's purpose.
- Neil Conway
On June 21, 2017, 7:08
<<` for
`RepeatedPtrField`. The current behavior is to silently omit printing
invalid resources, which seems very misleading. This would also avoid the risk
of random `CHECK` failures if a code path attempts to print a resource before
upgrading it.
- Neil Conway
On June 22, 2017, 12:
tions, and tasks" in commit message: remove the comma.
"a `upgradeResources`" in commit message: "a `validateAndUpgradeResources`"
src/common/resources_utils.hpp
Lines 141 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/60282/#comment252854>
"in their previous format"
`TaskInfo` is actually
being sent to the allocator? The agent gets the correct `TaskInfo`.
- Neil Conway
On June 21, 2017, 7:06 p.m., Michael Park wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit
)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/60281/#comment252729>
If we're already copying the operation (see `foreach` a few lines up), do
we need to make an additional copy of the `TaskInfo`? If we mutate w/o copying,
we'd avoid the need to introduce a second variable.
- Neil Conway
On June 21, 2017
)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/60283/#comment252728>
Update this comment.
- Neil Conway
On June 21, 2017, 7:08 p.m., Michael Park wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://re
tps://reviews.apache.org/r/60284/#comment252588>
Also need to update the header file.
- Neil Conway
On June 21, 2017, 7:08 p.m., Michael Park wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply,
ws.apache.org/r/60283/#comment252587>
If we can use `Option` for `upgradeResources`, can we avoid
duplicating all this error handling code?
- Neil Conway
On June 21, 2017, 7:08 p.m., Michael Park wrote:
>
> ---
> This is
src/common/resources_utils.cpp
Lines 274 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/60282/#comment252583>
Hmmm -- this means that we're going to validate most resources twice in
most code paths, right? That seems unfortunate, although I guess it isn't easy
to avoid.
- Neil Conway
On J
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/60281/#review178533
---
Can we write a unit test for this change?
- Neil Conway
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/60254/#review178446
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Neil Conway
On June 20, 2017, 11:35 p.m
, we could
consider combining validation and format conversion into a single helper; or
perhaps have an "try adding `Resource` to `Resources`" that validates the
`Resource`, converts it to the right format, and then either returns the
updated `Resources` or an error if validation.
- N
sible to translate
the refined reservations into the old format" -- it seems to me it is
explicitly _not_ possible to accurately translate refined reservations into the
old format, which is the reason for this change.
- Neil Conway
On June 19, 2017, 9:52 p.m., Michael
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/60244/#review178401
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Neil Conway
On June 20, 2017, 2:22 p.m
(patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/60218/#comment252238>
Also need to update v1
- Neil Conway
On June 20, 2017, 12:57 a.m., Michael Park wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply,
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/60219/#review178334
---
Ship it!
- Neil Conway
On June 20, 2017, 12:59 a.m., Michael
ps://reviews.apache.org/r/60070/#comment252202>
is "send the result" accurate here? "checkpoint the result" instead?
- Neil Conway
On June 14, 2017, 9:56 a.m., Michael Park wrote:
>
> ---
> Thi
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/60190/#review178315
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Neil Conway
On June 19, 2017, 6:43 a.m
., are we always
omitting default values to ensure we roundtrip, or is it just good practice in
these situations, etc.?
- Neil Conway
On June 19, 2017, 8:43 p.m., Michael Park wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail.
a boolean. e.g.,
`OMIT_DEFAULT_VALUES`, `INCLUDE_DEFAULT_VALUES`.
- Neil Conway
On June 19, 2017, 8:40 p.m., Michael Park wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache
omment explaining what is going on here?
- Neil Conway
On June 19, 2017, 8:40 p.m., Michael Park wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/60211/#review178298
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Neil Conway
On June 19, 2017, 8:45 p.m
/include/stout/protobuf.hpp
Line 835 (original), 835 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/60207/#comment252183>
Update this comment.
- Neil Conway
On June 19, 2017, 8:40 p.m., Michael Park wrote:
>
> ---
> This is a
/59760/diff/2-3/
Testing
---
`make check`
Thanks,
Neil Conway
---
`make check`
Thanks,
Neil Conway
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/60070/#comment252063>
Wrong enum name?
src/slave/state.cpp
Lines 785 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/60070/#comment252064>
Fix enum name
- Neil Conway
On Ju
rk
filters these resources".
Similar with the comment for `isFiltered` in hierarchical.hpp
- Neil Conway
On June 19, 2017, 6:43 a.m., Michael Park wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail.
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/60041/#review178191
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Neil Conway
On June 13, 2017, 8:43 a.m
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/60187/#review178192
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Neil Conway
On June 19, 2017, 6:39 a.m
)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/60070/#comment252058>
Seems like this is in the wrong RR?
- Neil Conway
On June 14, 2017, 9:56 a.m., Michael Park wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply,
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/60069/#review178189
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Neil Conway
On June 14, 2017, 9:56 a.m
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/60040/#review178188
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Neil Conway
On June 13, 2017, 8:42 a.m
(original), 1501 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/60017/#comment252057>
Per discussion, should instead result in a statically reserved resource
whose role is the last role in the reservation stack.
- Neil Conway
On June 13, 2017, 8:35 a.m., Michael Park
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/60185/#review178186
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Neil Conway
On June 19, 2017, 6:19 a.m
Line 267 (original), 267 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/60182/#comment252056>
"is validated, and is in the ..."
- Neil Conway
On June 19, 2017, 5:23 a.m., Michael Park wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an autom
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/60184/#review178185
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Neil Conway
On June 19, 2017, 5:26 a.m
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/60016/#review178183
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Neil Conway
On June 13, 2017, 8:35 a.m
change for reservation
refinements, not a change to just adapt to the new format? In any case, seems
like a comment would be helpful.
- Neil Conway
On June 13, 2017, 8:35 a.m., Michael Park wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically ge
ough.
src/v1/resources.cpp
Lines 663 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/60040/#comment252053>
Should the `!resource.has_reservation()` be a `CHECK` instead?
src/v1/resources.cpp
Lines 672 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/60040/#comment252052>
`CopyFrom`, I'
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/60181/#review178178
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Neil Conway
On June 19, 2017, 5:17 a.m
(patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/60015/#comment252046>
Personally, I think this is a bit more readable:
```
if (isUnreserved(resource)) {
return false;
}
return role.isNone() || role.get() == reservationRole(resource);
```
- Neil Conway
On J
/
Testing
---
`make check`
Thanks,
Neil Conway
che.org/r/60036/#comment252038>
Backticks not double quotes?
src/common/http.cpp
Lines 526 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/60036/#comment252039>
Can we add `is` checks here, for safety's sake?
- Neil Conway
On June 15, 2017, 7:39
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/60036/#review178173
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Neil Conway
On June 15, 2017, 7:39 a.m
eviews.apache.org/r/60022/#comment252033>
I feel like `reservation->CopyFrom(resource->reservation())` would be more
idiomatic...?
- Neil Conway
On June 15, 2017, 8:48 a.m., Michael Park wrote:
>
>
/
Changes: https://reviews.apache.org/r/60178/diff/1-2/
Testing
---
`make check`
Thanks,
Neil Conway
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/60174/#review178168
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Neil Conway
On June 18, 2017, 10:02 p.m
---
Added test for endpoint resource format.
Diffs
-
src/tests/master_validation_tests.cpp
83370fa5653fe5da666ec577b05001c4a5499848
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/60178/diff/1/
Testing
---
`make check`
Thanks,
Neil Conway
validation to
support this new format? i.e., the commit message says the master is going to
_emit_ this weird format, but it doesn't necessarily follow why the master
needs to _accept_ inputs in this format.
Seems like we should update the tests for this change, right?
- Neil Conway
On June 18
?
- Neil Conway
On June 18, 2017, 10:03 p.m., Michael Park wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache
-- there isn't anything specific
about GCC 7.1 in this fix.
- Neil Conway
On May 24, 2017, 5:53 p.m., Aaron Wood wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache
v1/mesos.proto
Lines 367 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/59861/#comment251967>
Typo
include/mesos/v1/mesos.proto
Lines 1151 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/59861/#comment251969>
Remove comma: "reservation's role,"
- Neil Conway
On June 16, 2017, 10
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/60062/#review178122
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Neil Conway
On June 16, 2017, 7:48 p.m
I'll just give up on this, and we can try
to clean it up properly as part of fixing `Owned`.
- Neil
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/60139/#review178098
--
,
`GroupTest.ConnectTimer` fails. With this change, the test passes (both with
and without the fix for MESOS-5886 applied).
Thanks,
Neil Conway
,
Neil Conway
://reviews.apache.org/r/60070/#comment251772>
Are we using `const` here but not elsewhere in the RR for a reason?
- Neil Conway
On June 14, 2017, 9:56 a.m., Michael Park wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated
---
`make check`
Thanks,
Neil Conway
1 - 100 of 2064 matches
Mail list logo
