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 41444: Cleaned up Authorizer interface.
Date Mon, 21 Dec 2015 15:42:51 GMT


> On Dec. 18, 2015, 8:42 a.m., Adam B wrote:
> > Thank you for cleaning this up. It looked like an overwhelming amount of documentation
for what is not really that complex of an API. It still looks a bit verbose/repetitive, so
I've made some suggestions of what else to cut out.
> > I guess we're still waiting on the ACLs for create/remove persistent volumes, in
MESOS-4179

... and set/remove quota, which are all committed now, except remove quota.


> On Dec. 18, 2015, 8:42 a.m., Adam B wrote:
> > include/mesos/authorizer/authorizer.hpp, lines 64-65
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/41444/diff/1/?file=1166378#file1166378line64>
> >
> >     How formal. I would think you could get away with
> >     s/the "authorizer.proto" file/"authorizor.proto"/
> >     s|the "docs/authorization.md"|"docs/authorization.md"|

Not sure what the second substitution means, but being inspired by the first sentence ("How
formal"), I killed most of the comment : ).


> On Dec. 18, 2015, 8:42 a.m., Adam B wrote:
> > include/mesos/authorizer/authorizer.hpp, line 75
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/41444/diff/1/?file=1166378#file1166378line75>
> >
> >     What is "it"? Are we removing the initialize function, the acls parameter, or
what?
> >     
> >     This seems very related to the first paragraph "Only relevant..." which should
not be the first paragraph in the doxygen, since it is in no way a summary of the method.

Good point! I moved the first paragraph here and refactored the comment.


> On Dec. 18, 2015, 8:42 a.m., Adam B wrote:
> > include/mesos/authorizer/authorizer.hpp, lines 114-116
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/41444/diff/1/?file=1166378#file1166378line114>
> >
> >     You can probably shorten this here and everywhere by just saying "A failed future
indicates a problem processing the request; the request can be retried."

Till suggested the following in [one of the reviews](https://reviews.apache.org/r/40346/):
"A failed future however indicates a problem processing the request and the request can be
retried." Almost identical to your proposal.


> On Dec. 18, 2015, 8:42 a.m., Adam B wrote:
> > include/mesos/authorizer/authorizer.hpp, line 126
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/41444/diff/1/?file=1166378#file1166378line126>
> >
> >     s/RunTask/ShutdownFramework/

Good catch!


> On Dec. 18, 2015, 8:42 a.m., Adam B wrote:
> > include/mesos/authorizer/authorizer.hpp, line 144
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/41444/diff/1/?file=1166378#file1166378line144>
> >
> >     s/reserve particular resources/reserve resources/ since the only values currently
allowed for `resources` are ANY or NONE.

I'd say, that's an implementation detail of `LocalAuthorizer`; AFAIK, we do not enforce it
anywhere. I'm fine with leaving a `NOTE` though. What do you think?


> On Dec. 18, 2015, 8:42 a.m., Adam B wrote:
> > include/mesos/authorizer/authorizer.hpp, line 153
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/41444/diff/1/?file=1166378#file1166378line153>
> >
> >     s/reserve one or more types of resources/reserve resources/

See above.


> On Dec. 18, 2015, 8:42 a.m., Adam B wrote:
> > include/mesos/authorizer/authorizer.hpp, lines 155-156
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/41444/diff/1/?file=1166378#file1166378line155>
> >
> >     s/reserve the types of resources contained in the request/reserve resources/

See above.


- Alexander


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/41444/#review111142
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Dec. 21, 2015, 3:42 p.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/41444/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Dec. 21, 2015, 3:42 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Adam B, Alexander Rojas, Greg Mann, Jan Schlicht, and Till
Toenshoff.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Extract a repetitive part of the function comments into a class comment. Added backticks,
quotes when necessary, formatted comments to avoid jaggedness.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   include/mesos/authorizer/authorizer.hpp 19f6e1a2d025bf6ff07f515b10d41e8a48d7d0b4 
>   src/master/main.cpp e00f878770f3e0bddae5a137b50a00822d154e2c 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/41444/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> None: not a functional change.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Alexander Rukletsov
> 
>


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