nuttxpr commented on PR #14709: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/14709#issuecomment-2466238403
[**\[Experimental Bot, please feedback here\]**](https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aapache%2Fnuttx+13552&type=issues) Yes, this PR appears to meet the NuttX requirements, although some clarifications and additions would strengthen it. Here's a breakdown: **Strengths:** * **Clear Summary:** The summary clearly states the problem (picotool dependency on `PICO_SDK_PATH`) and proposes a solution (compiling picotool if not found in `$PATH`). * **Impact Identification:** The impact on the `boards/arm/rp2040/*` directory is noted. * **Testing Provided:** The testing section includes selftest results with different scenarios (picotool pre-installed, built from source, and neither) and mentions NuttX CI. The test logs clearly demonstrate the expected behavior. **Areas for Improvement:** * **Summary - Why is the change necessary?:** Explain *why* the current dependency on `PICO_SDK_PATH` for pre-installed picotool is a problem. Is it causing build failures in certain environments? Is it inconvenient for users? * **Summary - How does the change exactly work?:** Provide more detail on *how* the proposed change will be implemented. Will you modify the build system to search for picotool in `$PATH` first? How will you handle the compilation of picotool if it's not found? * **Impact - Be More Specific:** While `boards/arm/rp2040/*` is mentioned, elaborate on the *type* of impact. Is this a new feature? A bug fix? Does it affect any specific boards or configurations within that directory? * **Impact - User Impact (YES):** If the change requires users to install picotool in their `$PATH` or set `PICO_SDK_PATH` if they haven't already, that's a user impact. Document this clearly. * **Impact - Build Impact (YES):** The change to the build system to search for picotool and potentially compile it is a build impact. Explain this in more detail. Will build times be affected? * **Impact - Other Sections:** Fill out the remaining impact sections (documentation, security, compatibility). Even if the answer is "NO," explicitly state it. * **Testing - Build Host Information:** Specify the build host details as requested (OS, CPU, compiler). * **Testing - Target Details:** Be more specific about the target used for testing. "arch(sim,RISC-V,ARM,..), board:config, etc." is too generic. Provide the exact architecture, board, and configuration used. For example: `arm:rp2040:waveshare-rp2040-lcd-1.28:usbnsh`. * **Testing - NuttX CI Results:** Don't just *mention* NuttX CI. Once the CI runs, include a link to the CI run or summarize the results. By addressing these points, the PR will be significantly stronger and easier for reviewers to understand and approve. -- 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]
