-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/57473/#review171379
-----------------------------------------------------------
src/authorizer/local/authorizer.cpp
Lines 401 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/57473/#comment244272>
"a specialized"
src/authorizer/local/authorizer.cpp
Lines 573 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/57473/#comment244273>
Seems a bit inconsistent: we use `*(object->value)` elsewhere, but we omit the extra
set of parentheses here.
src/authorizer/local/authorizer.cpp
Line 895 (original)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/57473/#comment244274>
What do you think about splitting the `break` changes into a separate review?
- Neil Conway
On April 4, 2017, 9:21 a.m., Alexander Rojas wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/57473/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated April 4, 2017, 9:21 a.m.)
>
>
> Review request for mesos, Adam B and Benjamin Bannier.
>
>
> Repository: mesos
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> Adds mechanisms to support authorization of hierarchical roles,
> that is, it allows operators to write ACLs of the form `role/%`
> which will enforce the rule for any nested role, e.g. `role/a`,
> `role/b` and such.
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> src/authorizer/local/authorizer.cpp e241edf4afa48d35dbbbb94d72e8e8690f5bedfc
>
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/57473/diff/5/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> `make check`
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alexander Rojas
>
>
|