Mailing-List: contact reviews-help@mesos.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: reviews@mesos.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="===============0188157598673203856=="
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Review Request 59099: Enabled authorization for v1 API call
 UPDATE_MAINTENANCE_SCHEDULE.
From: Greg Mann <greg@mesosphere.io>
To: Adam B <adam@mesosphere.io>, Till Toenshoff <toenshoff@me.com>,
 Greg Mann <greg@mesosphere.io>
Cc: mesos <reviews@mesos.apache.org>, Alexander Rojas <alexander@mesosphere.io>
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2017 23:36:22 -0000
Message-ID: <20170601233622.32377.57418@reviews-vm2.apache.org>
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Sender: Greg Mann <noreply@reviews.apache.org>
References: <20170601145708.14309.98415@reviews-vm2.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <20170601145708.14309.98415@reviews-vm2.apache.org>
Reply-To: Greg Mann <greg@mesosphere.io>
archived-at: Thu, 01 Jun 2017 23:36:29 -0000

--===============0188157598673203856==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/59099/#review176701
-----------------------------------------------------------


src/master/http.cpp
Lines 4096-4169 (original), 4113-4205 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/59099/#comment250132>

    +1 to Till's comment here.
    
    I could imagine doing this with either one or two additional member function continuations. i.e., you could defer to a new `__updateMaintenanceSchedule` at L4113, and then to a new `___updateMaintenanceSchedule` at L4131. Or, it also seems reasonable to me to add just one new continuation at L4131, since the lambda starting at L4113 is short and only performs a bit of validation.


src/tests/api_tests.cpp
Lines 1205-1218 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/59099/#comment250133>

    I understand that you were just following an existing pattern here, but it does seem pretty inconsistent with the rest of our test code. I would prefer Till's suggestion as well.
    
    Perhaps you could create a ticket to update all the tests here which use this `.then` continuation approach, to make them more consistent with the rest of the codebase, and add a TODO in this file with a link to the ticket? Could go in a separate review.


- Greg Mann


On June 1, 2017, 2:57 p.m., Alexander Rojas wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/59099/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated June 1, 2017, 2:57 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Adam B, Greg Mann, and Till Toenshoff.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-7415
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-7415
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Enables the use of authorization for the `UPDATE_MAINTENANCE_SCHEDULE`
> v1 API call, using the ACL `UpdateMaintenanceSchedule` and the action
> of the same name as the API call.
> 
> It also updates the ApiTests to take into account the authorization
> case.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/master/http.cpp 1dcfe6ef00b0e3984deb79a511e665f638661323 
>   src/master/master.hpp 89d0790fd5fea59e74276f462581fe0073594732 
>   src/tests/api_tests.cpp 91b3473452b8e65cab9f2e873837d64a0edf4b54 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/59099/diff/5/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Alexander Rojas
> 
>


--===============0188157598673203856==--