[Rd] R-devel Digest, Vol 115, Issue 18

[Duncan Murdoch]

On 19/09/2012 10:08 AM, Terry Therneau wrote:
> > In general, as a package user, I don't want people to be able to
> > suppress checks on CRAN.  I want things fixed.
> >
> > So I am pretty sure there won't ever be a reliable "CRAN-detector" put
> > into R.  It would devalue the brand.
> >
> > Duncan Murdoch
>
> My problem is that CRAN demands that I suppress a large fraction of my checks, in order to
> fit within time constraints.  This leaves me with 3 choices.
>
> 1. Add lines to my code that tries to guess if CRAN is invoker.  A cat and mouse game per
> your desire above.
>
> 2. Remove large portions of my test suite.  I consider the survival package to be one of
> the pre-eminent current code sets in the world precisely because of the extensive
> validations, this action would change it to a second class citizen.
>
> 3. Add a magic environment variable to my local world, only do the full tests if it is
> present, and make the dumbed down version the default.  Others who want to run the full
> set are then SOL, which I very much don't like.
>
> I agree that CRAN avoidence, other than the time constraint, should be verboten.  But I
> don't think that security through obscurity is the answer.  And note that under scenario
> 3, which is essentially what is currently being forced on us, I can do such micshief as
> easily as under number 1.
>
> Terry Therneau

I understand the issue with time constraints on checks, and I think 
there are discussions in progress about that.  My suggestion has been to 
put in place a way for a tester to say that checks need to be run within 
a tight time limit, and CRAN as tester will do that in cases where it 
cares about the timing.

But even with the current (or past, it may have changed already) 
behaviour of tight limits for CRAN testing, you can put in code in your 
package that allows for longer tests in certain conditions. You'll run 
them, and if you advertise them, others will run them too.

Duncan Murdoch