> On June 28, 2016, 2:50 p.m., Alexander Rojas wrote:
> > include/mesos/authorizer/authorizer.proto, lines 90-91
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/49319/diff/1/?file=1431917#file1431917line90>
> >
> > This comment is rather incomplete:
> >
> > 1. Either they are both set or none.
> > 2. When none are set it is because the task has not yet created the directory
(because is scheduled) or it is finished and there was a lag between access and destruction
of the enpoint.
> >
> > All in all, we should mention that having none set is an exceptional case, and
could be treated by returning an error.
>
> Joerg Schad wrote:
> 1. Are you sure from the setting code that 1. is true?
> 2. I am not sure this needs to mentioned here as this is just describes the semantic,
and a module writer has to deal with that no matter how frequent it is.
>
> We can surely mention this is an exceptional case, but I would answer similarly as
for 2.
>
> Alexander Rojas wrote:
> 1. Yes, It is true!
> 2. if there is no object to authorize too, how do a module writer has to react to
it? This is an exceptional case and needs to be mention that it does occur
>
> Joerg Schad wrote:
> How about:
> // This action will have an object which might either have both a `FrameworkInfo`,
> // and `ExecutorInfo`, or in exceptional cases nothing set.
>
> Joerg Schad wrote:
> Btw Maybe we should later add a check which verfies this invariant...
Are you saying we should check for either "both" vs. "none" to make sure we never run into
"some"; as in `FrameworkInfo` being set but `ExecutorInfo` not being set?
- Till
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/49319/#review139796
-----------------------------------------------------------
On June 28, 2016, 2:35 p.m., Joerg Schad wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/49319/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated June 28, 2016, 2:35 p.m.)
>
>
> Review request for mesos, Adam B and Alexander Rojas.
>
>
> Bugs: MESOS-5730
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-5730
>
>
> Repository: mesos
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> The current semantic is that these fields might not be set.
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> include/mesos/authorizer/authorizer.proto fc76796022a6fa3d36a1447c476980868d42c2d0
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/49319/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Joerg Schad
>
>
|