[Rd] Re: stop() and Rcmd (PR#910)

[Paul Gilbert]

>> > "Rcmd check"  on NT does not catch errors generated by stop() in files
>> > in the tests directory. Thus the fact that all the tests complete does
>> > not mean they completed succesfully.

>In my experiments it *does* put out an error but continues.  This is
>intentional, as some Perls are rather flaky.  If you want to change it,
>remove the leading `-' in line 29 of etc/Makeconf-tests.

Knowing little about Windows I won't try to suggest what the default should be for
Windows. However, I do rely on make stopping when there is an error signalled by "R
CMD build". There is too much output to examine manually every time I test a package.
In general I think errors may go unnoticed for a long time if make does not stop on
errors, so I think the idea of continuing is a bit risky. But perhaps I should be
using something other than "R CMD build" to do testing. I thought things had recently
changed so that this was the preferred way to test a package?

>On the other hand, Rcmd check dse fails for me because the scripts
>are asking for interactive input (the number of singular values) and
>chewing up the rest of the script.  That *is* a bug in dse.

That is a bug in some examples, thanks for pointing it out. Is there a strategy for
handling interactive input to examples?

I don't seem to get the "chewing up the rest of the script" though. I also don't get
any failure in the sense of an error signalled to R CMD build or to my make. For the
reasons mentioned above I think that might be a good thing to do.

Paul Gilbert


-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html
Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
(in the "body", not the subject !)  To: r-devel-request@stat.math.ethz.ch
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._