nuttxpr commented on PR #15749: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15749#issuecomment-2630690807
[**\[Experimental Bot, please feedback here\]**](https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aapache%2Fnuttx+13552&type=issues) This PR mostly meets the NuttX requirements but is missing some crucial information. Here's a breakdown: **Strengths:** * **Clear Summary:** The summary explains the *what* and *why* of the change well. The mention of Kconfig prefix changes is helpful. * **Impact - Feature Change:** Clearly states the reduction in code duplication. * **Impact - Performance:** Explicitly states no performance impact, which is important. **Weaknesses:** * **Summary - How:** While the *what* is clear, the *how* is lacking detail. It mentions using the common layer, but doesn't explain the mechanism of code sharing (e.g., file moves, symbolic links, etc.). * **Missing Issue References:** No related NuttX issue(s) are referenced. Even if there isn't a directly related issue, it's good practice to create one to document the motivation and discussion around the change. * **Impact - User:** While stating "no difference in performance" addresses one aspect of user impact, it doesn't cover potential configuration changes. The Kconfig prefix changes *will* impact users, as they will need to adjust their configurations. This needs to be explicitly acknowledged and documented. The PR should explain how users should migrate their existing configurations. * **Impact - Build:** The Kconfig changes definitely impact the build process. This needs to be described. At minimum, it should mention the configuration changes required. * **Impact - Hardware:** Even if no architectural changes occur, explicitly stating which architectures (ESP32, ESP32S3) and boards are affected is important. * **Impact - Documentation:** Given the Kconfig changes, documentation updates are almost certainly required. This needs to be acknowledged, and ideally, the PR should include the updated documentation or a separate PR for documentation should be mentioned. * **Impact - Security/Compatibility:** Even if there's no impact, explicitly stating "NO" for these sections is better than leaving them blank. * **Testing - Insufficient Detail:** "Internal CI testing" is too vague. Specific target architectures, boards, and configurations tested should be listed. Ideally, snippets of relevant log output demonstrating the functionality before and after the change should be included (even if just a few key lines). The build host details are also missing. **Recommendations for Improvement:** 1. **Elaborate on the "How":** Explain the technical implementation details of using the common WiFi code. 2. **Link to a NuttX Issue:** Create an issue describing the motivation for this change and link it to the PR. 3. **Detail User Impact:** Explicitly describe the Kconfig changes and provide instructions for users to migrate their configurations. 4. **Detail Build Impact:** Explain the build changes due to Kconfig modifications. 5. **Specify Affected Hardware:** List the specific architectures (ESP32, ESP32S3) and boards impacted. 6. **Address Documentation:** Explain how the documentation is updated (or will be updated in a separate PR). 7. **Explicitly address Security and Compatibility:** Even if there's no impact, state "NO" for clarity. 8. **Provide Detailed Testing Information:** Specify the build hosts, target architectures, boards, configurations, and include relevant log snippets. By addressing these weaknesses, the PR will be much stronger and better adhere to the NuttX requirements. -- 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
