nuttxpr commented on PR #2841: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx-apps/pull/2841#issuecomment-2470016247
[**\[Experimental Bot, please feedback here\]**](https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aapache%2Fnuttx+13552&type=issues) No, this PR does not fully meet the NuttX requirements. While it provides a summary of the issue and demonstrates the change's effect, it lacks crucial information. Here's a breakdown of the missing pieces: * **Insufficient Summary:** While the example shows the problem, the summary needs to explain *why* the concatenation failed. What was the root cause of the bug? What part of the `nshlib/pipeline` code was changed, and *how* does the fix work? * **Missing Impact Assessment:** The "Impact" section is severely lacking. It only mentions `nshlib/pipeline`, which is the affected component, not the impact. All the "NO / YES" questions need to be answered explicitly. Even if the answer is NO, state it explicitly (e.g., "Impact on build: NO"). If there's a YES, provide details. For example, if there's no impact on documentation, write "Impact on documentation: NO". * **Incomplete Testing Information:** "NuttX CI" is not sufficient. Specify the build hosts (OS, CPU architecture, compiler) and the targets (architecture, board, configuration) used for testing. While the example NSH sessions show the before/after behavior, more comprehensive tests might be necessary depending on the complexity of the change. Furthermore, the provided logs aren't actual logs; they're example NSH sessions. If the change is only demonstrable through an NSH session, that's acceptable, but make it clear these are example sessions, not captured logs. **Example of how to improve the PR description:** ## Summary Fix incorrect handling of command substitution within pipelines. Previously, the output of command substitution (e.g., `uname`) within a pipeline was not correctly passed to the next command in the pipeline. This was due to [explain the root cause - e.g., incorrect buffer handling, variable expansion issue, etc. within the nshlib/pipeline code]. The fix corrects [explain how the fix works - e.g., adjusts buffer allocation, corrects the variable expansion logic, etc.] within the `nsh_parse_pipeline()` function in `nshlib/pipeline.c`. Related [NuttX Issue](insert link if applicable) ## Impact * Is new feature added? NO * Is existing feature changed? YES (Fixes a bug in pipeline handling of command substitution) * Impact on user: YES (Users will now see the correct output when using command substitution in pipelines. This fixes previously broken behavior). * Impact on build: NO * Impact on hardware: NO * Impact on documentation: NO (The change is a bug fix and does not require documentation updates.) * Impact on security: NO * Impact on compatibility: YES (This fixes a bug; therefore, it improves backward compatibility. No forward compatibility issues are anticipated.) * Anything else to consider: NO ## Testing I confirm that changes are verified on a local setup and work as intended: * Build Host: Linux (Ubuntu 20.04), x86_64, GCC 9.4.0 * Target: sim:nsh **Example NSH Session Before Change:** ``` nsh> set var_test `uname` nsh> echo $var_test NuttX nsh> echo $var_test | cat sh [5:100] nsh> ``` **Example NSH Session After Change:** ``` nsh> set var_test `uname` nsh> echo $var_test NuttX nsh> echo $var_test | cat sh [4:100] NuttX nsh> ``` By providing specific details and answering all required questions, the PR review process becomes much smoother and more efficient. Reviewers can quickly understand the change, its impact, and the verification performed. Remember, a well-written PR description is essential for getting your contributions accepted. -- 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]
