Hi Barbara,
On 16 May 2019 at 16:48, Barbara Lerner wrote:
| This is very helpful, thank you! The R Internals document gave me the
| clues that I need.
Great!
| I am pretty certain that more things are being checked than before as
| problems are being reported with code that has not
Hi Dirk,
This is very helpful, thank you! The R Internals document gave me the
clues that I need.
I am pretty certain that more things are being checked than before as
problems are being reported with code that has not changed. In
particular, it is checking if logical expressions are
Joris:
I'm sorry about your feelings about my thoughts based on Hadley's related
experience.
I feel lucky to be learning from this community. I'm an R user for many
years, but only became a package developer recently and don't have the
background neither the history in the community for putting in
From the other side of the fence, as an author and maintainer, I regret
much more when both my own tests and CRAN's have failed to detect a
problem than when I need to spend some effort to explain that something
is a false positive. Considering the number of downloads from CRAN, a
false
Joris,
I have no dog in this fight, but I think you should cool down a bit. Hadley
explained why he thought these people were students: it’s the adjective
studentische in the job description. I don’t think he meant, or implied,
any disrespect to the individuals concerned. He is entitled to ask in
On 16/05/2019 1:10 p.m., Jennifer Bryan wrote:
Thanks for the excellent comparable package, Hong.
Today's rejection of gargle instructs me to use \donttest{} instead of
\dontrun{}. Most of the affected functions create, load, and/or refresh
service account tokens and OAuth2 credentials. I see
--- Begin Message ---
I don’t think they check _every_ help page for examples. My assumption would be
that if the main functionality of the package is covered, then functions that
are clearly ancillary, or whose usage is obvious, get a pass.
Another reason for cloud-related packages to mark
On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 4:59 PM Hadley Wickham wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am most interested in understanding what level of
> discretion CRAN's "Studentischer administrativer Mitarbeiter" have to
> critique the implementation of R packages
Ing. is the german title for "Engineer". You made her name
Thanks for the excellent comparable package, Hong.
Today's rejection of gargle instructs me to use \donttest{} instead of
\dontrun{}. Most of the affected functions create, load, and/or refresh
service account tokens and OAuth2 credentials. I see that \dontrun{} is
used in AzureAuth, which does
Anyone had success releasing a package that is affected by the
"Non-staged installation was used" false positive bug?
This one:
https://cran.rstudio.com/web/checks/check_results_igraph.html
https://bugs.r-project.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17545
If yes, how did you do it? Thanks!
Gabor
Hi!
Mi humble opinion:
I cannot evaluate the workload for CRAN maintainer, but it don't seem to be
reasonable that students can make objections with packages that "do not
yield R CMD check problems or otherwise violate CRAN policies."
Maybe CRAN maintainer team are giving review tasks for those
From https://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/pub/bdr/noLD/README.txt :
"tests on x86_64 Linux with R-devel configured --disable-long-double"
in order to mimick platforms without support for long doubles.
Best,
Uwe Ligges
On 16.05.2019 15:31, Goldfeld, Keith wrote:
Good morning -
I have one final
To make sure that you have fixed it, you need an R build without long
double support. If you don't want to do this yourself, R-hub now has a
platform without long doubles, so you can do:
rhub::check(platform = "debian-gcc-devel-nold")
You can also do it locally with rhub::local_check_linux() or
Hi all,
The thread seems to have drifted off topic. I really didn't want this
to devolve into a discussion about when cat() or message() is more
appropriate — I have complete faith in Jenny Bryan's ability to
understand technical tradeoffs and pick the most appropriate given the
constraints. I am
It pays to read the archives before posting
https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-package-devel/2019q2/003941.html
On May 16, 2019 6:31:19 AM PDT, "Goldfeld, Keith"
wrote:
>Good morning -
>
>I have one final issue that is preventing me from a successful
>submission of my package simstudy to
Good morning -
I have one final issue that is preventing me from a successful
submission of my package simstudy to CRAN. In one of my examples, I sum
a vector of probabilities and check to make sure they sum to one.
I am getting an "noLD" error - so there is some issue with a long double. I
am a
On 16/05/2019 5:56 a.m., Jack O. Wasey wrote:
Barbara,
On 5/15/19 5:09 PM, Barbara Lerner wrote:
I have just upgraded to R 3.6.0 and when building and checking my
package, R CMD check passes all the checks, including running the
examples, but devtools::check reports a failure when running the
I think this is because the check systems set different environmental
variables. I had the same problem in February, and found out that R 3.6.0 (then
still to come) adds new environmental variable _R_CHECK_LENGTH_1_LOGIC2_. This
*is* documented, but the documentation is well hidden in
Why do you think so? Don't the lines below the "-- Building" header
mean that devtools/rcmdcheck is building the package?
I saw (the last part of) this:
> ~/git/rdtLite.check/rdtLite.Rcheck/00_pkg_src/rdtLite -> R CMD check .
Sorry if I added some confusion: on closer inspection, it does
On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 10:56 AM Jack O. Wasey wrote:
> Agree with Dirk, and also you are running R CMD check on the current
> directory,
Why do you think so? Don't the lines below the "-- Building" header
mean that devtools/rcmdcheck is building the package?
G.
[...]
> > ── Building
Barbara,
On 5/15/19 5:09 PM, Barbara Lerner wrote:
I have just upgraded to R 3.6.0 and when building and checking my
package, R CMD check passes all the checks, including running the
examples, but devtools::check reports a failure when running the
examples. I have also run the example
Hi All,
Just to close the thread for future readers.
CRAN forbid both plot.numeric() and plot.default(). Instead, I should
go down the route of pretty_plot and plot.prettyB
This means that plot(lm(1:10 ~ rnorm(10)) doesn't work and the plot()
function doesn't magically become nicer.
__But__ I
22 matches
Mail list logo
