nuttxpr commented on PR #15805:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15805#issuecomment-2648685694

   [**\[Experimental Bot, please feedback 
here\]**](https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aapache%2Fnuttx+13552&type=issues)
   
   
   
   The PR seems to mostly meet the NuttX requirements, but is missing some key 
information in the Testing section.
   
   Here's a breakdown:
   
   **Strengths:**
   
   * **Summary:** Clearly explains the "why," "what," and "how" of the change.  
The reference to #15804 provides valuable context.
   * **Impact:**  Addresses all the required impact areas.  The description of 
the impact on users who use custom defconfigs is particularly helpful.  The 
explanation of the BLE symbol changes, even though the code hasn't been merged, 
demonstrates good foresight.
   
   **Weaknesses:**
   
   * **Testing:**  While it mentions the *results* of the testing (reduced code 
size, no performance difference), it lacks crucial details about the testing 
*process* itself.  The required "Build Host(s)" and "Target(s)" information is 
missing. Critically, the "Testing logs before change" and "Testing logs after 
change" sections are empty. This makes it impossible to verify the claims made 
about code size reduction and performance.
   
   
   **To make this PR fully compliant:**
   
   1. **Testing - Build Host(s):**  Specify the operating system, CPU 
architecture, and compiler version used for building the code.  Example: 
`Linux, x86_64, GCC 12.2.0`
   2. **Testing - Target(s):**  Specify the target architecture, board, and 
configuration used for testing.  Example: `sim:qemu-x86_64, esp32:esp32-devkitc`
   3. **Testing Logs:**  Provide actual logs demonstrating the functionality 
before and after the change.  This could include output from `make`, boot logs 
from the target, or output from a test application that exercises the Wi-Fi 
functionality.  Even if the logs are lengthy, include a representative snippet 
or link to a separate log file.  If no functional difference is expected in the 
logs, explain that clearly and perhaps provide some other form of evidence 
(e.g., code size comparison).
   
   
   By adding this missing information, the PR will be much stronger and easier 
to review.
   


-- 
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