> On Sept. 8, 2020, 11:58 p.m., Greg Mann wrote:
> > src/master/master.cpp
> > Lines 10801 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/72832/diff/1/?file=2238999#file2238999line10801>
> >
> > Should we use `CHECK_NOTNULL` here instead?
With CHECK_NOTNULL you can't add output afterwards (it returns the pointer rather than a stream).
I assume that's why the logic I copied from (in `__removeSlave`) uses CHECK.
- Benjamin
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/72832/#review221820
-----------------------------------------------------------
On Sept. 8, 2020, 11:47 p.m., Benjamin Mahler wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/72832/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated Sept. 8, 2020, 11:47 p.m.)
>
>
> Review request for mesos and Greg Mann.
>
>
> Repository: mesos
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> To avoid the potential for accidental insertion into the maps,
> we prefer to use the .at operator for const access.
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> src/master/master.cpp 02723296e569fac9d553b1494a5ca7daa6ef9aa4
>
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/72832/diff/1/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> make check
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Benjamin Mahler
>
>
|