[Rd] if(--as-cran)?

[John Fox]

Dear all,

I'd like to second this fairly simple request. I currently enclosed some of
the examples in the effects package in \donttest{} blocks to satisfy the
CRAN timing requirements for examples. It would be nice to have something
like a \donttestcran{} block that suppresses the tests when --as-cran is set
(and on CRAN itself).

I'm sure that I've missed many of the nuances in this discussion, but this
seems like a simple solution to me.

Best,
 John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: r-devel-bounces at r-project.org [mailto:r-devel-bounces at r-
> project.org] On Behalf Of Kasper Daniel Hansen
> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 5:12 PM
> To: Warnes, Gregory
> Cc: Terry Therneau; r-devel at r-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Rd] if(--as-cran)?
> 
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Warnes, Gregory
> <gregory.warnes at novartis.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 9/4/12 3:58 PM, "Duncan Murdoch" <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On 04/09/2012 3:44 PM, Terry Therneau wrote:
> >>>ly in
> >>> On 09/04/2012 01:57 PM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
> >>> > On 04/09/2012 2:36 PM, Warnes, Gregory wrote:
> >>> >> On 9/4/12 8:38 AM, "Duncan Murdoch" <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> >On 04/09/2012 8:20 AM, Terry Therneau wrote:
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> On 09/04/2012 05:00 AM, M
> >>><mailto:r-devel-request at r-project.org>artin wrote:
> >>> >> >> > The issue is not just about "CRAN" vs "off CRAN".
> >>> >> >> > It is good to think about a more general scheme of
> >>> >> >> > "light testing" vs "normal testing" vs "extensive testing",
> >>> >> >> > e.g., for the situation where the package implements
> >>> >> >> > (simulation/bootstrap/ ..) based inference, and the
> developer
> >>> >> >> > (but not only) should be able to run the extensive tests.
> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >> >> > Martin
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> I agree with Martin. A mechanism to specify testing level
> would
> >>>be the
> >>> >> >> best. Then CRAN can choose to set that variable to "3" say,
> with
> >>>level
> >>> >> >> 1 for extensive and 2 for usual.
> >>>>> >>
> >>>
> >>>[snip]
> >
> >>The testingLevel() function is supposed to be a way to know that a
> >>certain level of testing is being done, to allow such tailoring.
> >>However, I don't think it's practical.  I think you can ask whether a
> >>specific test is being run (my "D" %in% tests() example), but you
> can't
> >>reasonably convert the set of tests chosen by a tester into a single
> >>number.
> >>
> >>What I think you and Greg are talking about is something different.
> You
> >>are asking that we set up more suites of tests, corresponding to
> >>numerical levels.  Currently we have two suites:  the default, and the
> >>--as-cran suite.  But we also have completely customized suites, set
> by
> >>users who want to check specific things.  They can do that the way you
> >>do (by calling the tests explicitly), or by setting environment
> >>variables (as described in the Tools chapter of the R Internals
> manual).
> >
> > No!  We're not asking for the r-core to create more test suites, or
> even
> > to do anything different based on the test intensity level.
> >
> > We're just asking for a standard way to control the intensity of the
> tests
> > *we* write to prevent us from duplicating this functionality in our
> own
> > packages, probably in incompatible ways.
> 
> And given that CRAN recently put down timing requirements (and
> Bioconductor has had them for a long time), it could be extremely
> useful to have one system.  It is not clear to me whether it needs
> more than 2 levels ("slow" and "fast"), but I'll leave that up to
> people who have thought longer about this.
> 
> I could certainly use it in several packages to differentiate between
> slow and quick tests.
> 
> Kasper
> 
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel