You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to reviews@mesos.apache.org by Michael Park <mc...@gmail.com> on 2015/06/21 19:08:36 UTC
Review Request 35715: Added revocable resource state validation.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/
-----------------------------------------------------------
Review request for mesos, Niklas Nielsen and Vinod Kone.
Repository: mesos
Description
-------
In `mesos.proto`, it specifies the expected state of revocable resource:
```
// ... Note that if this is set, 'disk' or 'reservation' cannot be set.
optional RevocableInfo revocable = 9;
```
This expectation should be validated in `Resources::validate(const Resource& resoure)`
Diffs
-----
src/common/resources.cpp eb5476a0365fe65f474afd0ab7a52ad7f1e04521
src/tests/resources_tests.cpp 9f96b14a6a4ce416d044934dd7ab4d28e4bc7332
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/diff/
Testing
-------
`make check`
Thanks,
Michael Park
Re: Review Request 35715: Added revocable resource state validation.
Posted by Mesos ReviewBot <re...@mesos.apache.org>.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/#review88704
-----------------------------------------------------------
Patch looks great!
Reviews applied: [35715]
All tests passed.
- Mesos ReviewBot
On June 21, 2015, 5:10 p.m., Michael Park wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated June 21, 2015, 5:10 p.m.)
>
>
> Review request for mesos, Niklas Nielsen and Vinod Kone.
>
>
> Repository: mesos
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> In `mesos.proto`, it specifies the expected state of revocable resource:
>
> ```
> // ... Note that if this is set, 'disk' or 'reservation' cannot be set.
> optional RevocableInfo revocable = 9;
> ```
>
> This expectation should be validated in `Resources::validate(const Resource& resoure)`
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> src/common/resources.cpp eb5476a0365fe65f474afd0ab7a52ad7f1e04521
> src/tests/resources_tests.cpp 9f96b14a6a4ce416d044934dd7ab4d28e4bc7332
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> Added `RevocableResourceTest.Validation` + `make check`
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michael Park
>
>
Re: Review Request 35715: Added revocable resource state validation.
Posted by Michael Park <mc...@gmail.com>.
> On June 21, 2015, 6:47 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
> > src/common/resources.cpp, lines 479-487
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/diff/1/?file=989223#file989223line479>
> >
> > These checks are done in master's validation.cpp
>
> Michael Park wrote:
> Ah sorry, I missed that.
>
> This reminded me of the discussion Jie and I had for [r32140](https://reviews.apache.org/r/32140/) regarding where validations should live. I think this validation belongs here rather than in master validation.
> What we concluded from the discussion was that `Resources::validate` should perform necessary validation to satisfy the invariant of the `Resource` object.
> This enables methods that operate on `Resource` (e.g. `Resources::isRevocable`) to assume its validity.
>
> My notes:
> > Synced with Jie on IRC regarding this topic. We agreed that `Resources::validate` needs to capture the invariant of the `Resource` object which means it needs to invalidate the `role == "*" && has_reservation()` state. This invariant is required for all the predicates as well as functions such as `reserved()` and `unreserved()` to have well-defined behavior.
>
> Jie's note:
> > Discussed with Mpark offline. We agreed that rule for Resources::validate is that it should only perform necessary validation to make sure all methods in Resources are well hahaved, and the validation around * and reservation info is necessary for 'reserved/unreserved' to work properly. Thus dropping the issue around validation.
>
> Michael Park wrote:
> I found Jie's comment regarding this: https://reviews.apache.org/r/33865/#comment133597
>
> @Jie: My thought here was that these checks are necessary to make `isRevocable` well-defined. The same way the check for `"*" resource cannot be dynamically reserved` is necessary to make `isDynamicallyReserved` and others well-defined?
>
> Jie Yu wrote:
> @Mpark,
>
> I think the following check is in Resources::validate because otherwise isReserved will break (e.g., role = `*` and reservation is not set, isReserved(resource, `*`) will return true).
>
> ```
> if (resource.role() == "*" && resource.has_reservation()) {
> return Error(
> "Invalid reservation: role \"*\" cannot be dynamically reserved");
> }
> ```
@Jie,
> e.g., role = * and reservation is not set, isReserved(resource, *) will return true
If you meant `role = * and reservation _is_ set`, then yes.
I'm saying that exact reasoning is also why these checks should be in `Resources::validate`, because otherwise `isRevocable` will break.
e.g. `reservation is set and revocable is set`, `isRevocable` will return true.
- Michael
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/#review88710
-----------------------------------------------------------
On June 21, 2015, 7 p.m., Michael Park wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated June 21, 2015, 7 p.m.)
>
>
> Review request for mesos, Jie Yu, Niklas Nielsen, and Vinod Kone.
>
>
> Repository: mesos
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> In `mesos.proto`, it specifies the expected state of revocable resource:
>
> ```
> // ... Note that if this is set, 'disk' or 'reservation' cannot be set.
> optional RevocableInfo revocable = 9;
> ```
>
> This expectation should be validated in `Resources::validate(const Resource& resoure)`
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> src/common/resources.cpp eb5476a0365fe65f474afd0ab7a52ad7f1e04521
> src/tests/resources_tests.cpp 9f96b14a6a4ce416d044934dd7ab4d28e4bc7332
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> Added `RevocableResourceTest.Validation` + `make check`
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michael Park
>
>
Re: Review Request 35715: Added revocable resource state validation.
Posted by Michael Park <mc...@gmail.com>.
> On June 21, 2015, 6:47 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
> > src/common/resources.cpp, lines 479-487
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/diff/1/?file=989223#file989223line479>
> >
> > These checks are done in master's validation.cpp
>
> Michael Park wrote:
> Ah sorry, I missed that.
>
> This reminded me of the discussion Jie and I had for [r32140](https://reviews.apache.org/r/32140/) regarding where validations should live. I think this validation belongs here rather than in master validation.
> What we concluded from the discussion was that `Resources::validate` should perform necessary validation to satisfy the invariant of the `Resource` object.
> This enables methods that operate on `Resource` (e.g. `Resources::isRevocable`) to assume its validity.
>
> My notes:
> > Synced with Jie on IRC regarding this topic. We agreed that `Resources::validate` needs to capture the invariant of the `Resource` object which means it needs to invalidate the `role == "*" && has_reservation()` state. This invariant is required for all the predicates as well as functions such as `reserved()` and `unreserved()` to have well-defined behavior.
>
> Jie's note:
> > Discussed with Mpark offline. We agreed that rule for Resources::validate is that it should only perform necessary validation to make sure all methods in Resources are well hahaved, and the validation around * and reservation info is necessary for 'reserved/unreserved' to work properly. Thus dropping the issue around validation.
>
> Michael Park wrote:
> I found Jie's comment regarding this: https://reviews.apache.org/r/33865/#comment133597
>
> @Jie: My thought here was that these checks are necessary to make `isRevocable` well-defined. The same way the check for `"*" resource cannot be dynamically reserved` is necessary to make `isDynamicallyReserved` and others well-defined?
>
> Jie Yu wrote:
> @Mpark,
>
> I think the following check is in Resources::validate because otherwise isReserved will break (e.g., role = `*` and reservation is not set, isReserved(resource, `*`) will return true).
>
> ```
> if (resource.role() == "*" && resource.has_reservation()) {
> return Error(
> "Invalid reservation: role \"*\" cannot be dynamically reserved");
> }
> ```
>
> Michael Park wrote:
> @Jie,
> > e.g., role = * and reservation is not set, isReserved(resource, *) will return true
>
> If you meant `role = * and reservation _is_ set`, then yes.
>
> I'm saying that exact reasoning is also why these checks should be in `Resources::validate`, because otherwise `isRevocable` will break.
> e.g. `reservation is set and revocable is set`, `isRevocable` will return true.
>
> Niklas Nielsen wrote:
> Hey guys - did you reach a conclusion?
>
> Niklas Nielsen wrote:
> MPark; how can we get closure on this?
I asked Jie to look at it a while ago but I think he's quite busy. I'll discard it for now.
- Michael
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/#review88710
-----------------------------------------------------------
On June 21, 2015, 7 p.m., Michael Park wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated June 21, 2015, 7 p.m.)
>
>
> Review request for mesos, Jie Yu, Niklas Nielsen, and Vinod Kone.
>
>
> Repository: mesos
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> In `mesos.proto`, it specifies the expected state of revocable resource:
>
> ```
> // ... Note that if this is set, 'disk' or 'reservation' cannot be set.
> optional RevocableInfo revocable = 9;
> ```
>
> This expectation should be validated in `Resources::validate(const Resource& resoure)`
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> src/common/resources.cpp eb5476a0365fe65f474afd0ab7a52ad7f1e04521
> src/tests/resources_tests.cpp 9f96b14a6a4ce416d044934dd7ab4d28e4bc7332
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> Added `RevocableResourceTest.Validation` + `make check`
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michael Park
>
>
Re: Review Request 35715: Added revocable resource state validation.
Posted by Niklas Nielsen <ni...@qni.dk>.
> On June 21, 2015, 11:47 a.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
> > src/common/resources.cpp, lines 479-487
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/diff/1/?file=989223#file989223line479>
> >
> > These checks are done in master's validation.cpp
>
> Michael Park wrote:
> Ah sorry, I missed that.
>
> This reminded me of the discussion Jie and I had for [r32140](https://reviews.apache.org/r/32140/) regarding where validations should live. I think this validation belongs here rather than in master validation.
> What we concluded from the discussion was that `Resources::validate` should perform necessary validation to satisfy the invariant of the `Resource` object.
> This enables methods that operate on `Resource` (e.g. `Resources::isRevocable`) to assume its validity.
>
> My notes:
> > Synced with Jie on IRC regarding this topic. We agreed that `Resources::validate` needs to capture the invariant of the `Resource` object which means it needs to invalidate the `role == "*" && has_reservation()` state. This invariant is required for all the predicates as well as functions such as `reserved()` and `unreserved()` to have well-defined behavior.
>
> Jie's note:
> > Discussed with Mpark offline. We agreed that rule for Resources::validate is that it should only perform necessary validation to make sure all methods in Resources are well hahaved, and the validation around * and reservation info is necessary for 'reserved/unreserved' to work properly. Thus dropping the issue around validation.
>
> Michael Park wrote:
> I found Jie's comment regarding this: https://reviews.apache.org/r/33865/#comment133597
>
> @Jie: My thought here was that these checks are necessary to make `isRevocable` well-defined. The same way the check for `"*" resource cannot be dynamically reserved` is necessary to make `isDynamicallyReserved` and others well-defined?
>
> Jie Yu wrote:
> @Mpark,
>
> I think the following check is in Resources::validate because otherwise isReserved will break (e.g., role = `*` and reservation is not set, isReserved(resource, `*`) will return true).
>
> ```
> if (resource.role() == "*" && resource.has_reservation()) {
> return Error(
> "Invalid reservation: role \"*\" cannot be dynamically reserved");
> }
> ```
>
> Michael Park wrote:
> @Jie,
> > e.g., role = * and reservation is not set, isReserved(resource, *) will return true
>
> If you meant `role = * and reservation _is_ set`, then yes.
>
> I'm saying that exact reasoning is also why these checks should be in `Resources::validate`, because otherwise `isRevocable` will break.
> e.g. `reservation is set and revocable is set`, `isRevocable` will return true.
>
> Niklas Nielsen wrote:
> Hey guys - did you reach a conclusion?
MPark; how can we get closure on this?
- Niklas
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/#review88710
-----------------------------------------------------------
On June 21, 2015, noon, Michael Park wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated June 21, 2015, noon)
>
>
> Review request for mesos, Jie Yu, Niklas Nielsen, and Vinod Kone.
>
>
> Repository: mesos
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> In `mesos.proto`, it specifies the expected state of revocable resource:
>
> ```
> // ... Note that if this is set, 'disk' or 'reservation' cannot be set.
> optional RevocableInfo revocable = 9;
> ```
>
> This expectation should be validated in `Resources::validate(const Resource& resoure)`
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> src/common/resources.cpp eb5476a0365fe65f474afd0ab7a52ad7f1e04521
> src/tests/resources_tests.cpp 9f96b14a6a4ce416d044934dd7ab4d28e4bc7332
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> Added `RevocableResourceTest.Validation` + `make check`
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michael Park
>
>
Re: Review Request 35715: Added revocable resource state validation.
Posted by Michael Park <mc...@gmail.com>.
> On June 21, 2015, 6:47 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
> > src/common/resources.cpp, lines 479-487
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/diff/1/?file=989223#file989223line479>
> >
> > These checks are done in master's validation.cpp
>
> Michael Park wrote:
> Ah sorry, I missed that.
>
> This reminded me of the discussion Jie and I had for [r32140](https://reviews.apache.org/r/32140/) regarding where validations should live. I think this validation belongs here rather than in master validation.
> What we concluded from the discussion was that `Resources::validate` should perform necessary validation to satisfy the invariant of the `Resource` object.
> This enables methods that operate on `Resource` (e.g. `Resources::isRevocable`) to assume its validity.
>
> My notes:
> > Synced with Jie on IRC regarding this topic. We agreed that `Resources::validate` needs to capture the invariant of the `Resource` object which means it needs to invalidate the `role == "*" && has_reservation()` state. This invariant is required for all the predicates as well as functions such as `reserved()` and `unreserved()` to have well-defined behavior.
>
> Jie's note:
> > Discussed with Mpark offline. We agreed that rule for Resources::validate is that it should only perform necessary validation to make sure all methods in Resources are well hahaved, and the validation around * and reservation info is necessary for 'reserved/unreserved' to work properly. Thus dropping the issue around validation.
I found Jie's comment regarding this: https://reviews.apache.org/r/33865/#comment133597
@Jie: My thought here was that these checks are necessary to make `isRevocable` well-defined. The same way the check for `"*" resource cannot be dynamically reserved` is necessary to make `isDynamicallyReserved` and others well-defined?
- Michael
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/#review88710
-----------------------------------------------------------
On June 21, 2015, 7 p.m., Michael Park wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated June 21, 2015, 7 p.m.)
>
>
> Review request for mesos, Jie Yu, Niklas Nielsen, and Vinod Kone.
>
>
> Repository: mesos
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> In `mesos.proto`, it specifies the expected state of revocable resource:
>
> ```
> // ... Note that if this is set, 'disk' or 'reservation' cannot be set.
> optional RevocableInfo revocable = 9;
> ```
>
> This expectation should be validated in `Resources::validate(const Resource& resoure)`
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> src/common/resources.cpp eb5476a0365fe65f474afd0ab7a52ad7f1e04521
> src/tests/resources_tests.cpp 9f96b14a6a4ce416d044934dd7ab4d28e4bc7332
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> Added `RevocableResourceTest.Validation` + `make check`
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michael Park
>
>
Re: Review Request 35715: Added revocable resource state validation.
Posted by Jie Yu <yu...@gmail.com>.
> On June 21, 2015, 6:47 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
> > src/common/resources.cpp, lines 479-487
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/diff/1/?file=989223#file989223line479>
> >
> > These checks are done in master's validation.cpp
>
> Michael Park wrote:
> Ah sorry, I missed that.
>
> This reminded me of the discussion Jie and I had for [r32140](https://reviews.apache.org/r/32140/) regarding where validations should live. I think this validation belongs here rather than in master validation.
> What we concluded from the discussion was that `Resources::validate` should perform necessary validation to satisfy the invariant of the `Resource` object.
> This enables methods that operate on `Resource` (e.g. `Resources::isRevocable`) to assume its validity.
>
> My notes:
> > Synced with Jie on IRC regarding this topic. We agreed that `Resources::validate` needs to capture the invariant of the `Resource` object which means it needs to invalidate the `role == "*" && has_reservation()` state. This invariant is required for all the predicates as well as functions such as `reserved()` and `unreserved()` to have well-defined behavior.
>
> Jie's note:
> > Discussed with Mpark offline. We agreed that rule for Resources::validate is that it should only perform necessary validation to make sure all methods in Resources are well hahaved, and the validation around * and reservation info is necessary for 'reserved/unreserved' to work properly. Thus dropping the issue around validation.
>
> Michael Park wrote:
> I found Jie's comment regarding this: https://reviews.apache.org/r/33865/#comment133597
>
> @Jie: My thought here was that these checks are necessary to make `isRevocable` well-defined. The same way the check for `"*" resource cannot be dynamically reserved` is necessary to make `isDynamicallyReserved` and others well-defined?
@Mpark,
I think the following check is in Resources::validate because otherwise isReserved will break (e.g., role = `*` and reservation is not set, isReserved(resource, `*`) will return true).
```
if (resource.role() == "*" && resource.has_reservation()) {
return Error(
"Invalid reservation: role \"*\" cannot be dynamically reserved");
}
```
- Jie
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/#review88710
-----------------------------------------------------------
On June 21, 2015, 7 p.m., Michael Park wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated June 21, 2015, 7 p.m.)
>
>
> Review request for mesos, Jie Yu, Niklas Nielsen, and Vinod Kone.
>
>
> Repository: mesos
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> In `mesos.proto`, it specifies the expected state of revocable resource:
>
> ```
> // ... Note that if this is set, 'disk' or 'reservation' cannot be set.
> optional RevocableInfo revocable = 9;
> ```
>
> This expectation should be validated in `Resources::validate(const Resource& resoure)`
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> src/common/resources.cpp eb5476a0365fe65f474afd0ab7a52ad7f1e04521
> src/tests/resources_tests.cpp 9f96b14a6a4ce416d044934dd7ab4d28e4bc7332
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> Added `RevocableResourceTest.Validation` + `make check`
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michael Park
>
>
Re: Review Request 35715: Added revocable resource state validation.
Posted by Michael Park <mc...@gmail.com>.
> On June 21, 2015, 6:47 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
> > src/common/resources.cpp, lines 479-487
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/diff/1/?file=989223#file989223line479>
> >
> > These checks are done in master's validation.cpp
Ah sorry, I missed that.
This reminded me of the discussion Jie and I had for [r32140](https://reviews.apache.org/r/32140/) regarding where validations should live. I think this validation belongs here rather than in master validation.
What we concluded from the discussion was that `Resources::validate` should perform necessary validation to satisfy the invariant of the `Resource` object.
This enables methods that operate on `Resource` (e.g. `Resources::isRevocable`) to assume its validity.
My notes:
> Synced with Jie on IRC regarding this topic. We agreed that `Resources::validate` needs to capture the invariant of the `Resource` object which means it needs to invalidate the `role == "*" && has_reservation()` state. This invariant is required for all the predicates as well as functions such as `reserved()` and `unreserved()` to have well-defined behavior.
Jie's note:
> Discussed with Mpark offline. We agreed that rule for Resources::validate is that it should only perform necessary validation to make sure all methods in Resources are well hahaved, and the validation around * and reservation info is necessary for 'reserved/unreserved' to work properly. Thus dropping the issue around validation.
- Michael
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/#review88710
-----------------------------------------------------------
On June 21, 2015, 7 p.m., Michael Park wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated June 21, 2015, 7 p.m.)
>
>
> Review request for mesos, Jie Yu, Niklas Nielsen, and Vinod Kone.
>
>
> Repository: mesos
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> In `mesos.proto`, it specifies the expected state of revocable resource:
>
> ```
> // ... Note that if this is set, 'disk' or 'reservation' cannot be set.
> optional RevocableInfo revocable = 9;
> ```
>
> This expectation should be validated in `Resources::validate(const Resource& resoure)`
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> src/common/resources.cpp eb5476a0365fe65f474afd0ab7a52ad7f1e04521
> src/tests/resources_tests.cpp 9f96b14a6a4ce416d044934dd7ab4d28e4bc7332
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> Added `RevocableResourceTest.Validation` + `make check`
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michael Park
>
>
Re: Review Request 35715: Added revocable resource state validation.
Posted by Niklas Nielsen <ni...@qni.dk>.
> On June 21, 2015, 11:47 a.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
> > src/common/resources.cpp, lines 479-487
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/diff/1/?file=989223#file989223line479>
> >
> > These checks are done in master's validation.cpp
>
> Michael Park wrote:
> Ah sorry, I missed that.
>
> This reminded me of the discussion Jie and I had for [r32140](https://reviews.apache.org/r/32140/) regarding where validations should live. I think this validation belongs here rather than in master validation.
> What we concluded from the discussion was that `Resources::validate` should perform necessary validation to satisfy the invariant of the `Resource` object.
> This enables methods that operate on `Resource` (e.g. `Resources::isRevocable`) to assume its validity.
>
> My notes:
> > Synced with Jie on IRC regarding this topic. We agreed that `Resources::validate` needs to capture the invariant of the `Resource` object which means it needs to invalidate the `role == "*" && has_reservation()` state. This invariant is required for all the predicates as well as functions such as `reserved()` and `unreserved()` to have well-defined behavior.
>
> Jie's note:
> > Discussed with Mpark offline. We agreed that rule for Resources::validate is that it should only perform necessary validation to make sure all methods in Resources are well hahaved, and the validation around * and reservation info is necessary for 'reserved/unreserved' to work properly. Thus dropping the issue around validation.
>
> Michael Park wrote:
> I found Jie's comment regarding this: https://reviews.apache.org/r/33865/#comment133597
>
> @Jie: My thought here was that these checks are necessary to make `isRevocable` well-defined. The same way the check for `"*" resource cannot be dynamically reserved` is necessary to make `isDynamicallyReserved` and others well-defined?
>
> Jie Yu wrote:
> @Mpark,
>
> I think the following check is in Resources::validate because otherwise isReserved will break (e.g., role = `*` and reservation is not set, isReserved(resource, `*`) will return true).
>
> ```
> if (resource.role() == "*" && resource.has_reservation()) {
> return Error(
> "Invalid reservation: role \"*\" cannot be dynamically reserved");
> }
> ```
>
> Michael Park wrote:
> @Jie,
> > e.g., role = * and reservation is not set, isReserved(resource, *) will return true
>
> If you meant `role = * and reservation _is_ set`, then yes.
>
> I'm saying that exact reasoning is also why these checks should be in `Resources::validate`, because otherwise `isRevocable` will break.
> e.g. `reservation is set and revocable is set`, `isRevocable` will return true.
Hey guys - did you reach a conclusion?
- Niklas
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/#review88710
-----------------------------------------------------------
On June 21, 2015, noon, Michael Park wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated June 21, 2015, noon)
>
>
> Review request for mesos, Jie Yu, Niklas Nielsen, and Vinod Kone.
>
>
> Repository: mesos
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> In `mesos.proto`, it specifies the expected state of revocable resource:
>
> ```
> // ... Note that if this is set, 'disk' or 'reservation' cannot be set.
> optional RevocableInfo revocable = 9;
> ```
>
> This expectation should be validated in `Resources::validate(const Resource& resoure)`
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> src/common/resources.cpp eb5476a0365fe65f474afd0ab7a52ad7f1e04521
> src/tests/resources_tests.cpp 9f96b14a6a4ce416d044934dd7ab4d28e4bc7332
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> Added `RevocableResourceTest.Validation` + `make check`
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michael Park
>
>
Re: Review Request 35715: Added revocable resource state validation.
Posted by Vinod Kone <vi...@gmail.com>.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/#review88710
-----------------------------------------------------------
src/common/resources.cpp (lines 479 - 487)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/#comment141265>
These checks are done in master's validation.cpp
- Vinod Kone
On June 21, 2015, 5:10 p.m., Michael Park wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated June 21, 2015, 5:10 p.m.)
>
>
> Review request for mesos, Niklas Nielsen and Vinod Kone.
>
>
> Repository: mesos
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> In `mesos.proto`, it specifies the expected state of revocable resource:
>
> ```
> // ... Note that if this is set, 'disk' or 'reservation' cannot be set.
> optional RevocableInfo revocable = 9;
> ```
>
> This expectation should be validated in `Resources::validate(const Resource& resoure)`
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> src/common/resources.cpp eb5476a0365fe65f474afd0ab7a52ad7f1e04521
> src/tests/resources_tests.cpp 9f96b14a6a4ce416d044934dd7ab4d28e4bc7332
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> Added `RevocableResourceTest.Validation` + `make check`
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michael Park
>
>
Re: Review Request 35715: Added revocable resource state validation.
Posted by Michael Park <mc...@gmail.com>.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/
-----------------------------------------------------------
(Updated June 21, 2015, 5:10 p.m.)
Review request for mesos, Niklas Nielsen and Vinod Kone.
Repository: mesos
Description
-------
In `mesos.proto`, it specifies the expected state of revocable resource:
```
// ... Note that if this is set, 'disk' or 'reservation' cannot be set.
optional RevocableInfo revocable = 9;
```
This expectation should be validated in `Resources::validate(const Resource& resoure)`
Diffs
-----
src/common/resources.cpp eb5476a0365fe65f474afd0ab7a52ad7f1e04521
src/tests/resources_tests.cpp 9f96b14a6a4ce416d044934dd7ab4d28e4bc7332
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/35715/diff/
Testing (updated)
-------
Added `RevocableResourceTest.Validation` + `make check`
Thanks,
Michael Park