nuttxpr commented on PR #15103: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15103#issuecomment-2530346447
[**\[Experimental Bot, please feedback here\]**](https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aapache%2Fnuttx+13552&type=issues) No, this PR does not fully meet the NuttX requirements. While it provides a summary of the *what*, it lacks crucial information regarding *why* this change is necessary. Specifically, it's missing: * **Rationale:** Why is this inconsistency a problem? Does it cause bugs, portability issues, or simply stylistic inconsistency? The PR needs to justify the change. * **Functional Change Description:** Which part of the code is affected? "limits/path" is a start, but more detail is needed. Which files were modified? * **Impact Assessment:** While marking "N/A" is tempting, it's rarely entirely accurate. Consider: * **Compatibility:** Does this change affect any existing code that relies on `CONFIG_PATH_MAX`? Even if not, explicitly stating so improves clarity. * **Documentation:** If `CONFIG_PATH_MAX` is mentioned in documentation or comments, those should be updated. * **Testing:** "ci-check" is insufficient. Provide concrete examples of tests run, ideally showing how the change fixes a pre-existing problem or improves behavior. Include actual log output, not just a mention of the test method. Specify the host and target details as requested. In short, the PR needs more context and justification to be properly reviewed and accepted. -- 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
