[Rd] R 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 both fail their test suites
Martin Maechler
maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch
Mon Nov 10 17:52:39 CET 2014
>>>>> Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com>
>>>>> on Wed, 5 Nov 2014 10:22:09 -0500 writes:
> On 05/11/2014 9:36 AM, Peter Simons wrote:
>> Hi Duncan,
>>
>> > I don't think we should be removing tests for everybody to allow a few
>> > people to test a build of R that none of us actually use.
>>
>> no tests need to be removed.
> My response was to Martin, who proposed exactly that.
>> All that needs to be done is to distinguish
>> tests that require the recommended packages from those that don't. Then
>> users can choose which test set they want to run.
> Go ahead and submit a patch that does this, and I expect it would be
> accepted.
> Duncan Murdoch
I have committed changes (svn 66943 and 66951) which more or
less achieves this.
Basic idea: example() newly has an argument 'run.dontcheck = interactive()'
whereas till now it implicitely had 'run.dontcheck = TRUE'
so using example(..) in our examples or strict tests should now
be safe(r).
So, in the current development version of R,
indeed 'make check' passes -- on one platform at least :-) --
even when R was configured to *not* install the recommended
packages alongside.
BTW: In one place, I've used
base.and.rec <- .packages(all.available=TRUE, lib=.Library)
example(glm, run.dontcheck = any("MASS" == base.and.rec))
for checking the presence of one (and by implication "all",
almost surely) recommended package.
Martin Maechler
>> It would be particularly nice if "make check" would do the right thing
>> automatically based on the choice of --with{,out}-recommended-packages
>> at ./configure time. Offering two separate "check" targets would be
>> equally good, though.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Peter
More information about the R-devel
mailing list