nuttxpr commented on PR #15534: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15534#issuecomment-2589411363
[**\[Experimental Bot, please feedback here\]**](https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aapache%2Fnuttx+13552&type=issues) Yes, this PR appears to meet the NuttX requirements, although it could be improved. **Strengths:** * **Clear Summary:** The summary explains the problem, the solution, and the relevant prior PR. * **Impact is Addressed:** The impact section identifies the affected file. * **Testing Provided:** Testing logs (although minimal) are included, demonstrating the fix on a specific target. * **Concise:** The information is presented efficiently. **Weaknesses & Suggestions for Improvement:** * **Impact Understated:** The impact section is too brief. While the code change might *seem* localized, the impact description should explicitly state: * **Impact on user:** NO (if the user experience doesn't change besides the fix). * **Impact on build:** NO (unless something in the build process needed changing). * **Impact on hardware:** NO (unless specific hardware is affected). * **Impact on documentation:** NO (if no documentation needs updating). * **Impact on security:** NO (if no security implications). * **Impact on compatibility:** NO (assuming no compatibility issues are introduced). If there *are* compatibility issues, these must be clearly described. * **Testing Could Be More Robust:** While the `ifconfig` test demonstrates basic functionality, more comprehensive tests are generally desirable. Consider: * **Negative Testing:** Try to trigger error conditions to ensure they're handled correctly. * **Edge Cases:** Test with unusual or boundary conditions (e.g., very long file names, many open files). * **Before/After Logs:** The "before" logs are missing. While you say "it can be executed successfully without assert," showing the assert *before* the fix makes the improvement clearer. Include the exact assert message you were getting before. * **Multiple Architectures/Configurations:** Testing on more than one architecture and configuration is ideal, if possible. This helps ensure the fix is generally applicable and doesn't introduce unintended consequences elsewhere. * **Consider a "Fixes" Tag:** In the PR description on GitHub, add `Fixes #13722` (or the actual issue number related to the fs_heap introduction) to automatically close the related issue when the PR is merged. This helps keep the issue tracker organized. By addressing these points, the PR will be even stronger and easier for reviewers to assess. -- 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]
