nuttxpr commented on PR #15281: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15281#issuecomment-2553009284
[**\[Experimental Bot, please feedback here\]**](https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aapache%2Fnuttx+13552&type=issues) Yes, this PR appears to meet the NuttX requirements, although some sections could be more detailed. Here's a breakdown of why and suggestions for improvement: **Strengths:** * **Clear Summary:** The summary explains the "why," "what," and "how" of the changes. The mention of `__gcov_fork` and stack checking provides technical context. * **Impact Section:** Marking it as a `RELEASE` impact highlights its significance. * **Testing Section:** Mentioning `CI` implies that Continuous Integration tests were run and passed. This is good, but could be strengthened (see below). **Weaknesses & Suggestions:** * **Missing Issue References:** Even if there isn't a directly related issue, it's good practice to briefly state that (e.g., "No related NuttX issue"). * **Impact Section Too Brief:** While `RELEASE` indicates a significant impact, the other fields should still be explicitly addressed. Even if the answer is "NO," state it explicitly. For example: * "Impact on user: NO" * "Impact on build: NO (unless CONFIG_GCOV is enabled)" (This is an assumption, but illustrates the level of detail desired) * "Impact on hardware: NO" * "Impact on documentation: YES (Documentation should be updated to reflect the changes to fork() behavior when gcov is enabled)" * "Impact on security: YES (The fix for the stack canary issue addresses a potential security vulnerability)" * "Impact on compatibility: NO (Expected to be backward compatible)" * **Testing Section Lacks Detail:** "CI" is a start, but insufficient. Specify: * **Build Host(s):** The operating system, compiler, and architecture of the CI environment. (e.g., "GitHub Actions Ubuntu Latest, GCC 11.x, x86_64") * **Target(s):** The architectures and boards tested on CI. (e.g., "sim:qemu-x86_64, stm32f4discovery:nsh") * **Missing Logs:** The "Testing logs before change" and "Testing logs after change" sections are empty. While full logs might be excessive, include snippets that demonstrate the issue being fixed and the successful resolution. Even a simple "before: segmentation fault," "after: program completes successfully" would be better than nothing. Ideally, show how the code coverage data is now correctly collected after the fix. **Example of improved Testing Section:** ``` Testing I confirm that changes are verified on local setup and works as intended: * Build Host(s): GitHub Actions: Ubuntu Latest, GCC 11.x, x86_64 * Target(s): sim:qemu-x86_64, stm32f4discovery:nsh Testing logs before change: ``` qemu-system-x86_64: terminating on signal SIGSEGV ``` Testing logs after change: ``` nsh> gcov_example # Example command demonstrating the application works after the change ... output showing program completion and potential code coverage statistics ... ``` By adding this level of detail, the PR becomes much stronger and easier for reviewers to assess and approve confidently. -- 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]
