----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/38342/#review100950 -----------------------------------------------------------
3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/protobuf.hpp (lines 764 - 765) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/38342/#comment158229> Newline, please! 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/protobuf.hpp (line 767) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/38342/#comment158230> We use double line spacing between function definitions. 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/protobuf.hpp (lines 771 - 772) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/38342/#comment158231> Could you please help me understand why this check is necessary? IIUC, compiler ensures `T` is a protobuf becasue you pass `elem` of type `T` to `JSON::protobuf()`. AFAIK, the only reason to do this check is to prohibit arguments like `google::protobuf::RepeatedPtrField<google::protobuf::RepeatedPtrField<T>>`. Do you want to express this? I don't think it is necessary, because `JSON::Array` filled with `JSON::Array` is fine. @MPark, what'd you say? 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/protobuf.hpp (line 777) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/38342/#comment158232> Newline, please. 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/tests/protobuf_tests.cpp (line 166) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/38342/#comment158235> See my comment above. I think you should not repeat testing conversion for all the fields, just a simple message with repeated field. 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/tests/protobuf_tests.pb.h (line 40) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/38342/#comment158236> Just to confirm: this file is generated using bundled protobuf, right? Could you please put the `protoc` version in the RR description for posterity? 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/tests/protobuf_tests.pb.cc (lines 32 - 34) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/38342/#comment158237> Just to confirm: this file is generated using bundled protobuf, right? Could you please put the `protoc` version in the RR description for posterity? 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/tests/protobuf_tests.proto (line 79) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/38342/#comment158233> s/array// 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/tests/protobuf_tests.proto (line 80) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/38342/#comment158234> s/MessageArray/ArrayMessage A high level question: why wouldn't you use `SimpleMessage` instead? Proto->JSON conversion for a single message is already checked in the different test, you want to check the conversion for collections. I would say, using `SimpleMessage` can reduce the amount of test code needed. - Alexander Rukletsov On Sept. 27, 2015, 1:34 a.m., Klaus Ma wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/38342/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Sept. 27, 2015, 1:34 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Alexander Rukletsov, Michael Park, and Jan Schlicht. > > > Bugs: MESOS-3405 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-3405 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Currently, `stout/protobuf.hpp` provides a `JSON::Protobuf` utility which > converts a `google::protobuf::Message` into a `JSON::Object`. > We should add the support for `google::protobuf::RepeatedPtrField<T>` by > introducing overloaded functions. > > > Diffs > ----- > > 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/protobuf.hpp 2285ce9 > 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/tests/protobuf_tests.cpp 68328a2 > 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/tests/protobuf_tests.pb.h 8ebb798 > 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/tests/protobuf_tests.pb.cc 34eb6d0 > 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/tests/protobuf_tests.proto 920f5c9 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/38342/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > cd 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout > ./boostrap > ./configure > make > > > Thanks, > > Klaus Ma > >
