[Bioc-devel] library() calls removed in simpleSingleCell workflow
Wolfgang Huber
wolfgang.huber at embl.de
Thu Oct 5 20:22:44 CEST 2017
Breaking up long workflows into several smaller "modules" each with a
clearly defined input and output is a good idea, certainly for didactic
& maintenance reasons.
It doesn't "solve" the DLL issue though, it only avoids it (for now)...
I believe you can use a Makefile for your vignettes
(https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/R-exts.html#Writing-package-vignettes),
and this might be a good way of managing which depends on which. For
passing along output/input, perhaps local .RData files are good enough,
perhaps some wheel-reinventing can also be avoided by using
https://bioconductor.org/packages/release/bioc/html/BiocFileCache.html
(haven't actually used it yet, though).
Wolfgang
5.10.17 20:02, Aaron Lun scripsit:
> This may relate to what I was thinking with respect to solving the DLL
> problem, by breaking up large workflows into modules that can be
> executed in separate R sessions. The same approach would also make it
> easier to associate package dependencies with specific parts of the
> workflow.
>
>
> In my particular situation, it is easy to break up the workflow into
> sections that can be executed completely independently. However, I can
> also imagine situations where dependencies on previous objects, etc.
> make it difficult to break up the workflow. If multiple files are
> present in vignettes/, can they be directed to execute in a specific
> order, and would output files from one vignette persist during the
> execution of another?
>
>
> -Aaron
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Wolfgang Huber <wolfgang.huber at embl.de>
> *Sent:* Thursday, 5 October 2017 6:23:47 PM
> *To:* Laurent Gatto; Aaron Lun
> *Cc:* bioc-devel at r-project.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Bioc-devel] library() calls removed in simpleSingleCell
> workflow
>
> I agree it is nice to be able to only load the packages needed for a
> certain section of a vignette and not the whole thing. And that too many
> `::` can make code look unwieldy (though some may actually increase
> readability).
>
> But relying on manually sprinkled in `library` calls seems like a hack
> prone to error. And there are always bound to be dependencies that are
> non-local, e.g. on general infrastructure like SummarizedExperiment,
> ggplot2, dplyr.
>
> So: do we need a way to computationally determine the dependencies of a
> vignette section, including highlighting/eliminating potential name
> clashes (b/c the warnings about masking emitted at package loading are
> easily ignored)? This seems like a straightforward engineering task.
>
> Eventually with such code analysis we could get rid of explicit
> `library` calls altogether :)
>
> Wolfgang
>
>
>
>
>
> 5.10.17 08:53, Laurent Gatto scripsit:
>>
>> 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 ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> With thanks in advance-
> Wolfgang
>
> -------
> Wolfgang Huber
> Principal Investigator, EMBL Senior Scientist
> European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL)
> Heidelberg, Germany
>
> wolfgang.huber at embl.de
> http://www.huber.embl.de
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
With thanks in advance-
Wolfgang
-------
Wolfgang Huber
Principal Investigator, EMBL Senior Scientist
European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL)
Heidelberg, Germany
wolfgang.huber at embl.de
http://www.huber.embl.de
More information about the Bioc-devel
mailing list