nuttxpr commented on PR #2827: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx-apps/pull/2827#issuecomment-2461651893
[**\[Experimental Bot, please feedback here\]**](https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aapache%2Fnuttx+13552&type=issues) No, this PR likely does *not* fully meet the NuttX requirements based on the provided information. Here's why: * **Insufficient Summary:** While it states *what* was changed (added CMake scripts for QuickJS), it lacks crucial details: * *Why* is this change necessary? Is it to improve build times, simplify the build process, or address a specific issue? * *How* does it work? Does it replace existing build mechanisms? How does it integrate with the NuttX build system? What files are involved? * **Incomplete Impact Assessment:** "nop" is not acceptable. While the impact *might* be minimal, the submitter must explicitly consider and address each point: * Does this affect users? Will they need to change how they build or use QuickJS? * Does this affect the build process itself beyond just adding the CMake option? * Does it affect any hardware or specific architectures? * Does it require documentation updates? Even if the answer is no, it should be stated explicitly. * Security, compatibility, etc., all need explicit "NO" or a detailed explanation if "YES." * **Inadequate Testing:** The testing description is very superficial. It doesn't show *what* was tested. Just building and enabling the configuration options is not sufficient. There needs to be evidence that QuickJS actually *works* within NuttX after this change. The logs are empty, providing zero evidence of functional testing. Specific test cases and their results before and after the change are required. Information on the build host is also missing. **To meet the requirements, the PR needs the following:** * **Expanded Summary:** Explain the rationale for the change and provide more technical details on how the CMake scripts are integrated. * **Detailed Impact Assessment:** Explicitly address *each* impact category, even if the answer is "NO." * **Thorough Testing Information:** * Specify the build host operating system, CPU architecture, and compiler version. * Provide specific test cases executed, including expected outcomes. * Include actual "before" and "after" logs demonstrating the functionality of QuickJS both before the change (presumably using the old build system) and after using the new CMake approach. These logs should show the QuickJS interpreter being invoked and producing expected output. Without these improvements, the PR is likely to be rejected or require significant revisions. -- 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]
