jonkeane commented on code in PR #13620:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/13620#discussion_r930361077
##########
.github/workflows/r.yml:
##########
@@ -327,6 +327,13 @@ jobs:
shell: Rscript {0}
working-directory: r
run: |
+ Sys.setenv(
+ RWINLIB_LOCAL = file.path(Sys.getenv("GITHUB_WORKSPACE"), "r",
"windows", "libarrow.zip"),
+ MAKEFLAGS = paste0("-j", parallel::detectCores()),
+ ARROW_R_DEV = TRUE,
+ "_R_CHECK_FORCE_SUGGESTS_" = FALSE
+ )
+ pak::pak("local::.")
Review Comment:
I'm not familiar enough with {pak} and {pak}'s idioms to know which are the
better or more natural ones for {pak}.
https://pak.r-lib.org/reference/pak_package_sources.html#local-package-trees-1
lists `local_install()` first and it's easier to get to that from the reference
section of the docs, which is what I first tried to do when I was trying to
figure out what `pak::pak("local::.")` was doing while reviewing this (the docs
for `pak::pak()` doesn't list what `"local::."` means, which was the first
place I went).
I don't think that we can be certain people modifying this code will be
familiar with {pak} (as far as I know this is the only place in the whole repo
we use it). So we should flag what's up with a comment if we're using something
that's not easy to get to the documentation about. We might even also add in
why {pak} is helpful here over other approaches
--
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: github-unsubscr...@arrow.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
