mesos-reviews mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alexander Rukletsov" <ruklet...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Review Request 41514: Accepted a single JSON object for quota set request.
Date Mon, 21 Dec 2015 11:48:17 GMT


> On Dec. 18, 2015, 12:04 a.m., Anand Mazumdar wrote:
> > LGTM.. Just some nits around:
> > 
> > - using `const` for test strings.
> > - reducing jaggedness for some blocks.
> > 
> > Also, a query regarding just accepting `true/false` as `force` field values.

Good points, thanks for the review, Anand!


> On Dec. 18, 2015, 12:04 a.m., Anand Mazumdar wrote:
> > src/master/quota_handler.cpp, line 273
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/41514/diff/1/?file=1168675#file1168675line273>
> >
> >     nit: use backticks (`force`)
> >     s/flag/field

I'm not sure we backtick flags, do we? AFAIK, we do that for object, variables, function names,
types.


> On Dec. 18, 2015, 12:04 a.m., Anand Mazumdar wrote:
> > src/master/quota_handler.cpp, line 299
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/41514/diff/1/?file=1168675#file1168675line299>
> >
> >     hmm,  why don't we do a `using google::protobuf::RepeatedPtrField` and get rid
of all this jaggedness ?

Yeah, and also `#include` it properly : )


> On Dec. 18, 2015, 12:04 a.m., Anand Mazumdar wrote:
> > src/master/quota_handler.cpp, line 338
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/41514/diff/1/?file=1168675#file1168675line338>
> >
> >     I like the less jagged version more here. It's also more consistent with other
similar strings in the function. What do you think ?

It's a known fact, that jaggedness is very subjective. I would argue, that wrapping error
message after `BadRequest` is less jagged and more readable, because more there is more space
for the message itself. Consistency is important, hence the following review: https://reviews.apache.org/r/41515/


> On Dec. 18, 2015, 12:04 a.m., Anand Mazumdar wrote:
> > src/master/quota_handler.cpp, line 353
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/41514/diff/1/?file=1168675#file1168675line353>
> >
> >     hmmm .. Should we return a `BadRequest` for all other non-allowed values of
`force` other then `true` or `false` ?

I was thinking about the [Postel's law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle),
but maybe you are right and we should not interpret "force:t", "force:1", "force:god-damn-yes"
as `false`, I'll fix that.


> On Dec. 18, 2015, 12:04 a.m., Anand Mazumdar wrote:
> > src/tests/master_quota_tests.cpp, line 199
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/41514/diff/1/?file=1168676#file1168676line199>
> >
> >     Not related to this review : Why don't we make all these `badRequest` expected
strings `const` ?

Yeah, let's fix it. Thanks!


- Alexander


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/41514/#review111086
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Dec. 17, 2015, 2:52 p.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/41514/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Dec. 17, 2015, 2:52 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Anand Mazumdar, Bernd Mathiske, Joerg Schad, and Joris Van
Remoortere.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-3960
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-3960
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> POST request to "/quota" requires a single JSON object as opposed to key-value pairs
encoded in a string.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/master/quota_handler.cpp 11167879b2480d9c8dd6398ca39c479089ec2272 
>   src/tests/master_quota_tests.cpp 0473869783a714766ed26fff61d7f8c56342df74 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/41514/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check on Mac OS 10.10.4
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Alexander Rukletsov
> 
>


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message