nuttxpr commented on PR #2813: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx-apps/pull/2813#issuecomment-2452771049
[**\[Experimental Bot, please feedback here\]**](https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aapache%2Fnuttx+13552&type=issues) Yes, this PR appears to meet the NuttX requirements, though some clarifications might be helpful. Here's a breakdown based on the requirements: * **Summary:** Clear explanation of the change (enabling specific CI builds for Complex PRs and disabling others) and the reason (fixing broken builds, linked to the relevant issue). The functional part changed is the CI workflow. How it works is also explained (different builds triggered based on PR type). * **Impact:** * **New Feature:** Arguably no, this is a modification of existing CI. * **Existing Feature Changed:** YES, CI build targets for Complex PRs. * **Impact on User:** NO. Users won't interact directly with CI. * **Impact on Build:** YES, CI builds for Complex PRs use different targets. This is well described. * **Impact on Hardware:** NO. Changes are only to the CI process, not the hardware configurations themselves. * **Impact on Documentation:** Possibly YES. If there's documentation on the CI process, it might need updating to reflect these changes. This needs explicit confirmation. * **Impact on Security:** NO (assuming the change itself doesn't introduce vulnerabilities in the CI). Explicitly stating "NO" with a brief justification would be better. * **Impact on Compatibility:** NO (assuming the builds themselves remain compatible). This also needs explicit confirmation with a brief justification. * **Anything else:** Consider adding a justification for the specific targets chosen for Complex PRs vs. those disabled. * **Testing:** Provides links to CI runs demonstrating the change. This is good, but including snippets of the relevant log output within the PR description itself (showing which builds are running) would improve clarity. Also, the "before change" logs should demonstrate the previous behavior (builds failing or the old set of targets running). Specifying the Build Host used for triggering the PRs would also be beneficial. **Suggestion for Improvement:** Add a sentence or two explaining the rationale for choosing `msys2`, `msvc`, `arm-08`, `arm-10`, and `arm-13` for Complex PRs. Why were these deemed sufficient? Why were `arm-01`, `arm-09`, and `arm-11` disabled? This will add valuable context to the PR. Also clarify impact on documentation, security, and compatibility as mentioned above. -- 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: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
