mesos-reviews mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joris Van Remoortere <joris.van.remoort...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Review Request 45491: Refactored subprocess options [1/5].
Date Tue, 05 Apr 2016 18:40:26 GMT

-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/45491/#review127172
-----------------------------------------------------------




3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/subprocess.hpp (line 80)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/45491/#comment190324>

    Please don't include random fixes in reviews. It makes the review / history confusing.



3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/subprocess.hpp (lines 178 - 216)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/45491/#comment190340>

    Why the inconsistency between a call operator and a friendship?



3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/subprocess.hpp (line 184)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/45491/#comment190325>

    backticks around `ChildHook`



3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/subprocess.hpp (line 211)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/45491/#comment190327>

    Do we use this `operator() ()` style elsewhere?



3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/subprocess.hpp (line 218)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/45491/#comment190328>

    Why do we need to friend if we've provided a call operator?



3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/subprocess.hpp 
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/45491/#comment190329>

    why did you get rid of this whitespace?



3rdparty/libprocess/src/subprocess.cpp (line 54)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/45491/#comment190335>

    2 new lines between function definitions



3rdparty/libprocess/src/subprocess.cpp (line 62)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/45491/#comment190337>

    Taking the working directory by reference is extremely dangerous here. Why do it? Does
the style guide default of `[=]` not work?



3rdparty/libprocess/src/subprocess.cpp (lines 63 - 64)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/45491/#comment190338>

    I don't understand how this comment applies to the `chdir` hook?



3rdparty/libprocess/src/subprocess.cpp (line 72)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/45491/#comment190336>

    2 new lines between function definitions


- Joris Van Remoortere


On March 31, 2016, 10:21 a.m., Joerg Schad wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/45491/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated March 31, 2016, 10:21 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos and Joris Van Remoortere.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-5070
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-5070
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Previously the subprocess interface supported a several options for the
> child process such as setsid. In order to make the interface more
> flexible we refactored such options into a vector of ChildHooks.
> In order not to allow arbitrary code inside a ChildHook it has to be
> constructed via pre-defined factory methods.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/ssl/gtest.hpp 5435ddda1fd7dfcff1a0b28f2abe35feb707ceeb

>   3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/subprocess.hpp 8a3fe5526f480187441a8aee2c72636bec3e2b2d

>   3rdparty/libprocess/src/subprocess.cpp bb0fcbcd0dfa455c8700247c5b4ca0473fd163c3 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/subprocess_tests.cpp 727e940f12643974de4ff2734fba431b285b5de3

> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/45491/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Tested entire chain see https://reviews.apache.org/r/45495/.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Joerg Schad
> 
>


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