nuttxpr commented on PR #2848:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx-apps/pull/2848#issuecomment-2473649461

   [**\[Experimental Bot, please feedback 
here\]**](https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aapache%2Fnuttx+13552&type=issues)
   
   
   
   Yes, this PR appears to meet the NuttX requirements, although the provided 
information is minimal.
   
   Here's a breakdown of why and what could be improved:
   
   **Strengths:**
   
   * **Clear Summary:** The summary concisely explains the bug, the affected 
code, and the general mechanism of the fix (accessing a procfs entry that 
doesn't exist when procfs is disabled).
   * **Impact is identified:** The impact on `nshlib/cmd_wait` is noted.
   * **Testing is described:**  The testing methodology is explained, 
referencing both local testing and CI.
   
   **Weaknesses & Areas for Improvement:**
   
   * **Missing "Why" in Summary:** While the bug is described, the PR doesn't 
explicitly state *why* this change is necessary.  Is `wait` expected to work 
without procfs?  Should it return a different error code?  This needs 
clarification.
   * **How it works is vague:** "accessing a procfs entry" isn't sufficient.  
Did you add a check for `CONFIG_FS_PROCFS`?  Did you change the error handling? 
 The PR description should clearly explain the code changes.
   * **Impact is incomplete:**  While `nshlib/cmd_wait` is mentioned, the 
explicit YES/NO answers for each impact category are missing. This makes it 
harder to quickly assess the scope of the change.  For example:
       * **Impact on user:** YES (users relying on `wait` without procfs will 
see different behavior).  Describe the new behavior.
       * **Impact on build:**  Probably NO (unless you added build 
dependencies).
       * **Impact on hardware:** NO
       * **Impact on documentation:**  Potentially YES if the behavior of 
`wait` is now different and needs documenting.
       * **Impact on security:**  Likely NO.
       * **Impact on compatibility:** Potentially YES.  Explain if the change 
breaks any existing scripts or usage patterns.
   * **Testing logs are missing:** The template clearly requests "Testing logs 
before change" and "Testing logs after change". These are crucial for reviewers 
to understand the impact and verify the fix.  Include the actual output of the 
`wait` command both before and after your changes.
   * **Build Host(s)/Target(s) incomplete:**  Provide more details about your 
local testing environment.  "sim:nsh" is a start, but specify the architecture 
(e.g., `sim:qemu-x86_64`).
   
   
   In short, while the core information is present, this PR description needs 
more detail and completeness to meet the NuttX standards fully.  Filling in the 
missing information will significantly improve the review process and the 
overall quality of the contribution.
   


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]

Reply via email to