On 25/01/2024 11:44 a.m., Josiah Parry wrote:
The package of course passes R CMD check otherwise it wouldn’t be on
CRAN! (:
CRAN doesn't run checks using R 3.6.0. The package claims it works
there, and maybe it will, but it won't pass R CMD check.
Duncan Murdoch
Thank you Henrik! Good to know my intuition was correct. I’m glad we can
start to use the new features of R in package documentation :)
On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 11:27 Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.dun...@gmail.com
<mailto:murdoch.dun...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On 25/01/2024 11:18 a.m., Henrik Bengtsson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 7:48 AM Duncan Murdoch
<murdoch.dun...@gmail.com <mailto:murdoch.dun...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> On 25/01/2024 10:27 a.m., Josiah Parry wrote:
>>> Hey all,
>>>
>>> I've encountered use of the native pipe operator in the
examples for
>>> 'httr2' e.g.
>>>
>>> request("http://example.com <http://example.com>") |> req_dry_run()
>>>
>>>
>>> Since r-oldrel (according to rversions::r_oldrel()) is now
4.2.3, can the
>>> native pipe be used in example code?
>>>
>>> I do notice that the package httr2 requires R >= 3.6.0 which
implies that
>>> the code itself does not use the native pipe, but the examples do.
>>
>> I think that the package should state it requires R (>= 4.1.0),
since
>> that code won't work in earlier versions.
>>
>> I believe it's a syntax error before 4.1.0, but don't have a
copy handy
>> to test.
>
> Yes, support for the |> syntax was introduced in R 4.1.0;
>
> $ Rscript --vanilla -e "getRversion()" -e "1:10 |> sum()"
> [1] ‘4.0.5’
> Error: unexpected '>' in "1:10 |>"
> Execution halted
>
> $ Rscript --vanilla -e "getRversion()" -e "1:10 |> sum()"
> [1] ‘4.1.0’
> [1] 55
>
>> That means the package won't pass R CMD check in those old
>> versions. If it wasn't a syntax error, just a case of using a new
>> feature, then I think it would be fine to put in a run-time test
of the
>> R version to skip code that won't run properly.
>
> There's also the distinction of package code versus code in
> documentation. If it's only example code in help pages that use the
> native pipe, but the code in R/*.R does not, then the package will
> still install and work with R (< 4.1.0). The only thing that won't
> work is when the user tries to run the code in the documented
> examples. I'd argue that it's okay to specify, say, R (>= 3.6.0) in
> such an example. It allows users with older versions to still
use the
> package, while already now migrating the documentation to use newer
> syntax.
Is there a way to do that so that R will pay attention, or do you mean
just saying it in a comment?
I think you're right that syntax errors in help page examples will be
installable, but I don't think there's a way to make them pass "R CMD
check" other than wrapping them in \dontrun{}, and I don't know a
way to
do that conditional on the R version.
I would say that a package that doesn't pass "R CMD check" without
errors shouldn't be trusted.
Duncan Murdoch
______________________________________________
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
