[Bioc-devel] library() calls removed in simpleSingleCell workflow

Thu Oct 5 08:53:08 CEST 2017

On  5 October 2017 00:11, Aaron Lun wrote:

> Here's another two cents from me:
>
> The explicit library() calls allow for easy copy-pasting if people
> only want to use/adapt a section of the workflow. In such cases,
> calling "library(simpleSingleCell)" could drag in a lot of unnecessary
> packages (e.g., which could hit the DLL limit). Reading through the
> text to figure out the requirements for each code chunk seems like a
> pain, and lots of "::" are unwieldy.
>
> More generally, the removal of individual library() calls seems to
> encourage the use of a single "library(simpleSingleCell)" call at the
> top of any user-developed custom analysis scripts based on the
> workflow. This seems conceptually odd to me - the simpleSingleCell
> package is simply a vehicle for the compiled workflow, it shouldn't be
> involved in analyses of other data.

I can confirm that this is a possibility.

Before workflows became available, I created the RforProteomics package
that essentially provided one relatively large vignette to demonstrate a
variety of applications of R/Bioconductor for mass spectrometry and
proteomics. I think this has been a useful way to disseminate R and
Bioconductor in these respective communities, but also lead to the
confusion that it was that package that "did all the stuff", i.e. people
saying that they were using RforProteomics to do a task that was
described in the vignette. The RforProteomics vignette does explicitly
call library at the beginning of each section and explained that the
package was only a collection of analyses stemming from other packages,
but that wasn't enough apparently.

Laurent

> -Aaron
>
> ________________________________
> From: Bioc-devel <bioc-devel-bounces at r-project.org> on behalf of Wolfgang Huber <wolfgang.huber at embl.de>
> Sent: Thursday, 5 October 2017 8:26 AM
> To: bioc-devel at r-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Bioc-devel] library() calls removed in simpleSingleCell workflow
>
>
> I find `eval=FALSE` chunks not a good idea, since
> - they confuse users who only see the rendered HTML/PDF (where this flag
> is not shown)
> - they are not tested, so more prone to code rot.
>
> I'd also like to object to the idea that proximity of a `library` call
> to code that uses a package is somehow didactic. It's actually a bad
> habit: the R interpreter does not care. The relevant package
> - can be mentioned in the narrative,
> - stated in the code with the pkgname:: prefix.
> The latter is good didactics to get people used to the idea of
> namespaces, especially since there is an increasing frequency of name
> clashes in CRAN, tidyverse, BioC (e.g. consider the various functions
> named 'filter' and the obscure malbehaviors that can result from these).
>
> Best wishes
>                 Wolfgang
>
> On 04/10/2017 22:20, Turaga, Nitesh wrote:
>> Hi Aaron,
>>
>>
>> A work around solution maybe to, put all libraries in a “eval=FALSE” block in the r code chunk
>>
>> ```{r, eval=FALSE}
>> library(scran)
>> library(scater)
>> ```
>>
>> etc.
>>
>>
>> This way the users can see the library() calls in the vignette.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Nitesh
>>
>>> On Oct 4, 2017, at 4:14 PM, Obenchain, Valerie <Valerie.Obenchain at RoswellPark.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi guys,
>>>
>>> A little background on this vignette -> package conversion. The workflows were converted to package form because we want to integrate them into the nightly build system instead of supporting separate machines as we're now doing.
>>>
>>> As part of this conversion, packages loaded in workflow vignettes were moved to Depends in DESCRIPTION. This enables the user to load a single package instead of many. Packages were moved to Depends instead of Suggests (as is usually done with software packages) because these vignette is the only thing these workflow packages have going - no defined classes or methods. This seemed a more tidy approach and the dependencies are listed in Depends for the user to see. This was my (maybe bad?) idea and Nitesh was the messenger. If you feel the individual loading of packages in the vignette is a key part of the instruction/learning we can leave them as is and list the packages in Suggests.
>>>
>>> I should also mention that incorporating the workflows into the build system won't happen until after the release. At that time we'll move the repositories from svn to git and it's likely we'll have to ask maintainers to abide by some time/space guidelines. At that point the build machines will be building software, experimental data and workflows and resources aren't unlimited. When that time comes we'll update the workflow guidelines and contact maintainers.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>> Valerie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/04/2017 12:27 PM, Kasper Daniel Hansen wrote:
>>>
>>> yeah, that is super super useful to people. In my vignettes (granted, not
>>> workflows) I have a separate "Dependencies" section which is basically a
>>> series of library() calls.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Aaron Lun <alun at wehi.edu.au><mailto:alun at wehi.edu.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Nitesh, list;
>>>
>>>
>>> The library() calls in the simpleSingleCell workflow have been removed.
>>> Why is this? I find explicit library() calls to be quite useful for readers
>>> of the compiled vignette, because it makes it easier for them to determine
>>> the packages that are required to adapt parts of the workflow for their own
>>> analyses. If it doesn't hurt the build system, I would prefer to have these
>>> library() calls in the vignette.
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>>
>>> Aaron
>>>
>>>        [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bioc-devel at r-project.org<mailto:Bioc-devel at r-project.org> mailing list
>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>        [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bioc-devel at r-project.org<mailto:Bioc-devel at r-project.org> mailing list
>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This email message may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information.  If you are not the intended recipient(s), or the employee or agent responsible for the delivery of this message to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this email message is prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete this email message from your computer. Thank you.
>>>       [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bioc-devel at r-project.org mailing list
>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel
> Bioc-devel Info Page - ETH Zurich<https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel>
> stat.ethz.ch
> Your email address: Your name (optional): You may enter a privacy password below. This provides only mild security, but should prevent others from messing with ...
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> This email message may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information.  If you are not the intended recipient(s), or the employee or agent responsible for the delivery of this message to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this email message is prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete this email message from your computer. Thank you.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bioc-devel at r-project.org mailing list
>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel
> Bioc-devel Info Page - ETH Zurich<https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel>
> stat.ethz.ch
> Your email address: Your name (optional): You may enter a privacy password below. This provides only mild security, but should prevent others from messing with ...
>
>
>
>>

-- 
Laurent Gatto | @lgatt0
http://cpu.sysbiol.cam.ac.uk/
http://lgatto.github.io/