mesos-reviews mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benjamin Bannier <bbann...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Review Request 71341: Validated provider ID use in some resource provider calls.
Date Thu, 22 Aug 2019 13:09:26 GMT


> On Aug. 22, 2019, 2:38 p.m., Jan Schlicht wrote:
> > src/resource_provider/validation.cpp
> > Lines 17 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/71341/diff/1/?file=2162387#file2162387line17>
> >
> >     Include this after `resource_provider/validation.hpp`.

Ups, parsed this as another not public include :D


> On Aug. 22, 2019, 2:38 p.m., Jan Schlicht wrote:
> > src/resource_provider/validation.cpp
> > Lines 98 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/71341/diff/1/?file=2162387#file2162387line98>
> >
> >     s/provider/resource provider/

Note that the field is called `provider_id`, but I guess using _resource_ provider here is
just more consistent.


- Benjamin


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/71341/#review217376
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Aug. 22, 2019, 3:04 p.m., Benjamin Bannier wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/71341/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Aug. 22, 2019, 3:04 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Chun-Hung Hsiao and Jan Schlicht.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-9482
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-9482
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> For some calls we expect resource providers to set provider IDs with the
> calls. While the resource provider manager has always asserted that the
> calls were correct we never validated this.
> 
> With this patch we perform additional validation for calls taking a
> `ResourceProviderInfo` into account. We add both unit tests for the
> validation code and an integration test confirming that the validation
> is actually triggered.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/resource_provider/manager.cpp ceed1225b37d23998f523afcc2184dfaaad60636 
>   src/resource_provider/validation.cpp df55b5efe3543c1dfd8441997302ab76fdd4bcc1 
>   src/tests/resource_provider_manager_tests.cpp bcf6a03aa5d4931feff0299c811faa216efd95b6

>   src/tests/resource_provider_validation_tests.cpp a9989412ae30bd8244be808fc88fbe70f47d6ad9

> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/71341/diff/2/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> `ninja check`
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Benjamin Bannier
> 
>


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