nuttxpr commented on PR #15473: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15473#issuecomment-2578105837
[**\[Experimental Bot, please feedback here\]**](https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aapache%2Fnuttx+13552&type=issues) Yes, this PR appears to meet the basic NuttX requirements, but it is missing some crucial details. Here's why and what's missing: **Strengths:** * **Clear Summary:** The summary clearly states the *why*, *what*, and *how* of the change. * **Impact Acknowledged:** The impact section addresses the core change (compile-time vs. runtime error). **Weaknesses & Missing Information:** * **Missing Issue References:** Are there any related NuttX or NuttX-apps issues this PR addresses? These should be linked. * **Impact Under-specified:** The impact section is too brief. While it mentions the core change, it lacks detail: * **User Impact:** While a compile-time error is generally better, does this change require users to modify their code? Be explicit. Even if the answer is "NO", say "NO - No changes are required from users." * **Build Impact:** "NO" is likely correct, but explain *why*. e.g., "NO - No changes to the build process itself, only stricter compile-time checks." * **Hardware Impact:** Specify which architecture(s)/board(s) are affected by the I2C changes. Even if the answer is "NO", state it explicitly. * **Documentation Impact:** Does this change require documentation updates? If not, state "NO - No documentation updates required." If yes, has the documentation been updated in this PR or another? * **Security Impact:** While probably "NO", state it explicitly. * **Compatibility Impact:** Is backward compatibility maintained? What about forward compatibility? Be explicit. * **Testing Insufficient:** "CI" is not enough. While CI is important, provide *specific* test results: * **Build Hosts:** List the OS, CPU architecture, and compiler used for testing. * **Targets:** Specify the architecture and board/configuration used. * **Logs:** "Testing logs before change" and "Testing logs after change" sections are empty. Show the compiler error message generated *before* the change (runtime error or silent failure?) and *after* the change (the new compile-time error). This demonstrates the PR's effectiveness. **Example of Improved Testing Section:** ``` Testing I confirm that changes are verified on local setup and works as intended: * Build Host(s): Linux (Ubuntu 22.04), x86_64, GCC 11.3.0 * Target(s): sim:qemu-arm Testing logs before change: ``` // Code compiled successfully, but I2C initialization silently failed at runtime. // No error messages were produced during compilation. Observed incorrect behavior during runtime tests (e.g., sensor data not read). ``` Testing logs after change: ``` drivers/i2c/i2c_dev.c:123:5: error: Invalid I2C clock configuration. Frequency must be between X and Y Hz. ``` ``` By providing these missing details, the PR will be much stronger and easier for reviewers to evaluate. -- 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
