nuttxpr commented on PR #14899: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/14899#issuecomment-2492816209
[**\[Experimental Bot, please feedback here\]**](https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aapache%2Fnuttx+13552&type=issues) Yes, this PR appears to meet the basic NuttX requirements, but it's missing some crucial information and could be significantly improved. Here's a breakdown of what's good and what needs improvement: **Strengths:** * **Clear Summary:** The summary concisely describes the change (adding a `netstat` tool). Attribution to the contributor is also good. * **Testing Section:** Provides steps to reproduce the test, including build instructions and how to use the new tool. The inclusion of example output is excellent. **Weaknesses:** * **Incomplete Summary:** While the *what* is clear, the *why* and *how* are missing. Why is this tool needed? How does it gather and display the information? What specific files were changed? * **Insufficient Impact Assessment:** Simply stating "New feature" is not enough. While there might not be changes to the build process or hardware, considerations for documentation, security, compatibility, and other potential impacts should be explicitly addressed. Even if the answer is "NO," stating it explicitly is important. * **Limited Testing:** Testing on QEMU is a good start, but ideally, testing should be performed on real hardware if possible. More importantly, the "before change" log is missing. Without this, it's impossible to verify that the new tool is actually providing new information. The testing also focuses only on one specific scenario. More diverse testing scenarios would strengthen the PR. * **Missing Issue References:** If this addresses a specific issue in either the NuttX or NuttX Apps repositories, those issues should be linked. * **Build Host Information Missing:** The testing section mentions QEMU, but doesn't detail the build host OS, CPU, or compiler used. * **No Discussion of Error Handling:** How does the tool handle errors? What happens if a network interface is down? This should be tested and documented. **Specific Recommendations for Improvement:** * **Expand the Summary:** Explain the motivation for the tool. Briefly describe the implementation details (e.g., which system calls or data structures are used). List the affected files. * **Thoroughly Address all Impact Points:** Even if the answer is "NO," explicitly state it for each impact category. For example: "Impact on build: NO." For documentation, specify whether documentation updates are included in the PR or will be added later. * **Improve Testing:** Provide "before change" logs. Test with different network configurations (e.g., multiple interfaces, different protocols). Test error conditions. If possible, test on real hardware. Provide details about the build host environment. * **Add Issue References:** Link any related issues. * **Document Error Handling:** Explain how the tool handles errors and unexpected situations. Include tests that demonstrate this behavior. By addressing these points, the PR will be much stronger and more likely to be accepted. A more complete and well-tested PR demonstrates care and attention to detail, making it easier for reviewers to understand and approve the changes. -- 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: commits-unsubscr...@nuttx.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
