nuttxpr commented on PR #15387: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15387#issuecomment-2565156540
[**\[Experimental Bot, please feedback here\]**](https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aapache%2Fnuttx+13552&type=issues) Yes, this PR appears to meet the NuttX requirements, although there are a few minor points that could be improved. **Strengths:** * **Clear Summary:** Explains the problem (lack of custom timeout handling with auto-monitor), the solution (notifier chain), and the affected functional area. * **Detailed Impact:** Covers most impact areas and provides clear instructions for using the new feature. The step-by-step guide with code examples is excellent. * **Testing Description:** Explains the test setup and provides relevant log output demonstrating the feature's functionality. **Areas for Potential Improvement:** * **Impact - Build:** While you mention `CONFIG_WATCHDOG_TIMEOUT_NOTIFIER`, explicitly state whether this is a new Kconfig option and if any dependencies are added (besides the stated dependency on `CONFIG_WATCHDOG_AUTOMONITOR`). For instance: "A new Kconfig option, `CONFIG_WATCHDOG_TIMEOUT_NOTIFIER`, is added. This option is only available if `CONFIG_WATCHDOG_AUTOMONITOR` is enabled." * **Impact - Documentation:** Even if minimal, mention where documentation updates are made (e.g., "Updated the watchdog documentation in docs/"). * **Testing - Before Change Logs:** While you describe the expected behavior before the change (no custom callback possible), include actual log output showing this. This strengthens the evidence that the change has the intended effect. A simple log snippet showing the watchdog timing out and resetting (without the custom message) would suffice. * **Testing - Targets:** Be more specific about the target platform used for testing. Instead of "a private platform," provide details like architecture and board if possible (even if partially redacted for confidentiality). Example: "Tested on a private platform based on ARM Cortex-M4 (board details redacted)." This helps reviewers understand the context of the testing. * **Conciseness:** The "Does this PR meet the NuttX Requirements?" section can be shortened. A simple "Yes" would suffice, as the rest of the description already provides the necessary details. By addressing these minor points, the PR will be even stronger and easier for reviewers to assess. Overall, it's a well-structured and informative PR submission. -- 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
