nuttxpr commented on PR #15334:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15334#issuecomment-2561571367

   [**\[Experimental Bot, please feedback 
here\]**](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 and mentions testing, it lacks crucial information.
   
   Here's what's missing:
   
   * **Summary:**  Needs more detail. *Why* does littlefs 2.10.0+ reject empty 
paths?  What was the problem this caused in NuttX?  What code was changed to 
use "/" instead? (e.g.,  "LittleFS 2.10.0 and later reject empty paths when 
mounting, causing mount failures in NuttX when an empty string was passed to 
the mount function. This change modifies the `xxx` function in `yyy` to pass 
"/" as the mount point path if an empty string is provided.")
   * **Impact:**  This section is entirely empty.  All the "Impact on..." 
questions need to be answered (even if the answer is NO).  For example:
       * Impact on user: NO
       * Impact on build: NO
       * Impact on hardware: NO
       * Impact on documentation:  YES (If documentation needs updating to 
reflect this change or if the PR includes documentation updates.)
       * Impact on security: NO (Unless there's a security implication related 
to using "/" vs. an empty string)
       * Impact on compatibility:  Potentially YES - explain if this change 
affects backward compatibility with apps using older versions of littlefs or 
forward compatibility with future versions.
   * **Testing:** More detail is required.  "esp32s3-devkit:toywasm" is not 
enough information.  Be specific about the OS, toolchain used on your build 
host. For your target, specify the NuttX configuration used (e.g., `nsh`).  
Crucially, you haven't provided any *actual* logs demonstrating the problem 
before the change and the successful operation after the change.  Show the 
error you were seeing before and the lack of error after.  Simply stating 
"tested" isn't sufficient.
   
   In short, the PR needs to be much more descriptive and provide evidence of 
the problem and the solution's effectiveness.  Without the missing information, 
reviewers cannot adequately assess the change.
   


-- 
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

Reply via email to