nuttxpr commented on PR #15117: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15117#issuecomment-2531442987
[**\[Experimental Bot, please feedback here\]**](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 change, it lacks crucial information. Here's what's missing: * **Summary:** * **Why is this change necessary?** Just stating "consistency" isn't sufficient. Explain the problem caused by the inconsistency. Does it lead to bugs, portability issues, or confusion? * **What functional part of the code is being changed?** Be specific. Mention the affected files, modules, or subsystems. * **How does the change exactly work?** Simply saying "replace CONFIG_PATH_MAX to PATH_MAX" is not enough detail. Explain the difference between these two defines and the implications of the change. Are there any corner cases? * **Related Issues/PRs:** If this addresses a reported bug or implements a requested feature, link the relevant issue(s). * **Impact:** "RELEASE" is not a valid answer. Address each impact point individually with "YES" or "NO" and provide explanations where necessary. For example, if the impact on documentation is "YES", describe the required documentation updates. Even if the answer is "NO" for most, explicitly state it. Pay particular attention to compatibility; changing `CONFIG_PATH_MAX` could have unforeseen consequences. * **Testing:** "CI" is insufficient. Provide specific details about your local testing: * **Build Host(s):** Specify your operating system, architecture, and compiler version. * **Target(s):** List the target architecture(s), board(s), and configuration(s) you tested on. "sim" is too vague; specify the simulator used. * **Testing Logs:** Include relevant log excerpts demonstrating the issue before the change and the correct behavior after the change. Just saying "CI" doesn't demonstrate that *you* have validated the fix locally. Ideally, the logs should highlight the specific problem being addressed and its resolution. In short, the PR needs significantly more detail to be acceptable. Focus on providing the *why*, *how*, and *proof* that the change is correct and doesn't introduce regressions. -- 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
