nuttxpr commented on PR #15811: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15811#issuecomment-2650116928
[**\[Experimental Bot, please feedback here\]**](https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aapache%2Fnuttx+13552&type=issues) This PR mostly meets the NuttX requirements, but could use some improvements for clarity and completeness. **Strengths:** * The summary clearly explains the *what* and *why* of the changes. * The impact section identifies the affected area (drivers/thermal). * Testing logs are included, demonstrating the functionality before and after the change. * The testing section mentions CI, which is good, but needs more detail. **Weaknesses:** * **Summary:** While it explains *what* changed, the *how* is missing. Specifically, how is `THERMAL_NORMAL` split into `THERMAL_ACTIVE` and `THERMAL_PASSIVE`? What code changes were made? A brief explanation of the mechanism for different update intervals would be helpful. Similarly, more detail on the "dummy passive cooling device" is needed. What is its purpose, and how is it implemented? * **Impact:** The impact section is too brief. While it correctly identifies the affected subsystem, it needs to explicitly answer *all* the questions with YES/NO and provide descriptions where necessary. For instance: * Is new feature added? YES (passive trip point support and dummy cooling device) * Is existing feature changed? YES (`THERMAL_NORMAL` behavior) * Impact on user? Potentially YES if they relied on the previous `THERMAL_NORMAL` behavior. Describe how they might need to adapt. * Impact on build? Likely NO, but confirm. * Impact on hardware? Likely NO, but confirm. If specific architectures or boards are affected, mention them. * Impact on documentation? YES if the new features and changes need to be documented. State whether documentation updates are included in the PR. * Impact on security? Probably NO, but explicitly state it. * Impact on compatibility? Possibly YES if the `THERMAL_NORMAL` change affects existing users. Elaborate. * **Testing:** The "CI" mention is insufficient. Specify which CI system is used and provide links to the successful CI runs. Furthermore, the testing logs are difficult to interpret without more context. Explain what the numbers represent (e.g., temperature, fan speed, time elapsed). Highlight the key parts of the log that demonstrate the intended behavior. For example, explicitly point out where the interval changes from 4 seconds to 2 seconds and explain why that validates the change. **Recommendations for Improvement:** 1. **Expand the Summary:** Provide more technical details about the implementation of the passive trip point and the dummy cooling device. Explain the mechanism for achieving different update intervals. 2. **Complete the Impact Section:** Answer all questions with YES/NO and provide detailed descriptions for each YES. 3. **Enhance the Testing Section:** Provide links to CI runs. Add more context and explanations to the testing logs, highlighting the crucial parts that validate the changes. Consider adding more test cases, such as testing with different temperature thresholds. Clearly state the expected behavior and show how the logs confirm that behavior. By addressing these weaknesses, the PR will be significantly improved and easier for reviewers to understand and approve. -- 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
