On April 8, 2015, 10:38 p.m., Jie Yu wrote:
src/master/validation.cpp, lines 581-584
https://reviews.apache.org/r/32150/diff/5/?file=920955#file920955line581
Is this necessary, or will be captured by the resources contains check
later?
Michael Park wrote:
It probably
On April 29, 2015, 10:15 p.m., Jie Yu wrote:
src/master/validation.cpp, line 575
https://reviews.apache.org/r/32150/diff/8/?file=944524#file944524line575
This fits into the above line?
Fixed.
On April 29, 2015, 10:15 p.m., Jie Yu wrote:
src/master/validation.cpp, line 598
On April 29, 2015, 10:15 p.m., Jie Yu wrote:
src/tests/master_validation_tests.cpp, line 286
https://reviews.apache.org/r/32150/diff/8/?file=944525#file944525line286
One extra blank line here please.
Added.
- Michael
---
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/32150/
---
(Updated May 2, 2015, 12:27 a.m.)
Review request for mesos, Alexander
On April 29, 2015, 9:54 a.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote:
src/master/master.cpp, lines 2486-2488
https://reviews.apache.org/r/32150/diff/5-8/?file=920953#file920953line2486
This looks a bit weird. Is it what `clang-format` proposes?
Michael Park wrote:
It is indeed. Do you
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/32150/#review81945
---
Ship it!
src/master/master.cpp
On April 22, 2015, 12:38 p.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote:
src/master/master.cpp, lines 2458-2459
https://reviews.apache.org/r/32150/diff/5/?file=920953#file920953line2458
These two fields are optional, `principal` doesn't have a default. Do
we need to check it? Can a framework
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/32150/#review82045
---
Ship it!
src/master/master.cpp
On April 29, 2015, 10:15 p.m., Jie Yu wrote:
src/master/master.cpp, lines 2487-2492
https://reviews.apache.org/r/32150/diff/8/?file=944522#file944522line2487
Why use a tmp variable here? Could you combine with validation below:
```
OptionError error =
On April 22, 2015, 12:38 p.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote:
src/master/master.cpp, lines 2458-2459
https://reviews.apache.org/r/32150/diff/5/?file=920953#file920953line2458
These two fields are optional, `principal` doesn't have a default. Do
we need to check it? Can a framework
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/32150/
---
(Updated April 28, 2015, 10:21 p.m.)
Review request for mesos, Alexander
On April 22, 2015, 12:38 p.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote:
src/tests/master_validation_tests.cpp, line 328
https://reviews.apache.org/r/32150/diff/5/?file=920956#file920956line328
Don't you get an unused variable warning?
Hm, looks like I do. Not sure what happpened there. Sorry
On April 8, 2015, 10:38 p.m., Jie Yu wrote:
src/master/validation.cpp, lines 581-584
https://reviews.apache.org/r/32150/diff/5/?file=920955#file920955line581
Is this necessary, or will be captured by the resources contains check
later?
It probably would be checked by `contains`,
On April 22, 2015, 12:38 p.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote:
src/master/validation.cpp, line 555
https://reviews.apache.org/r/32150/diff/5/?file=920955#file920955line555
Let's leave a comment here that `resource::validate` not only checks
for integrity of the `resources` instance,
14 matches
Mail list logo
