[Rd] Running package tests and not stop on first fail
maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch
Sat Nov 5 21:53:08 CET 2016
>>>>> Oliver Keyes <ironholds at gmail.com>
>>>>> on Fri, 4 Nov 2016 12:42:54 -0400 writes:
> On Friday, 4 November 2016, Martin Maechler
> <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote:
>> >>>>> on Fri, 4 Nov 2016 10:36:52 -0500 writes:
>> > On 4 November 2016 at 16:24, Martin Maechler wrote: |
>> My > proposed name '--no-stop-on-error' was a quick shot;
>> if | > somebody has a more concise or better "English
>> style" > wording | (which is somewhat compatible with all
>> the other > options you see | from 'R CMD check --help'),
>> | please > speak up.
>> > Why not keep it simple? The similar feature this most
>> > resembles is 'make -k' and its help page has
>> > -k, --keep-going
>> > Continue as much as possible after an > error. While
>> the target that failed, and those that > depend on it,
>> cannot be remade, the other dependencies of > these
>> targets can be processed all the same.
>> Yes, that would be quite a bit simpler and nice in my
>> view. One may think it to be too vague,
> Mmn, I would agree on vagueness (and it breaks the pattern
> set by other flags of human-readability). Deep familiarity
> with make is probably not something we should ask of
> everyone who needs to test a package, too.
> I quite like stop-on-error=true (exactly the same as the
> previous suggestion but shaves off some characters by
> inverting the Boolean)
Thank you, Brian, Dirk and Oliver for these (and some offline)
thoughts and suggestions!
My current summary:
1) I really don't want a --<option-key>=value
but rather stay with logical/binary variables that "express
themselves"... in the same way I strongly prefer
if (A_is_special) ....
if (A_special == TRUE) ....
for a logical variable A_* . Yes, this is mostly a matter
of taste,.. but related to how R style itself "works"
2) Brian mentioned that this is only about ./tests/ tests which
are continued, not about the Examples which are treated separately.
That's why we had contemplated additionally using 'tests' (because that's
the directory name used for unit/regression/.. tests) in the option
Even though Brian is correct, ideally we *would* want to also influence the
examples' running to *not* stop on a first error.. However that would
need more work, reorganizing how the examples are run and that may not be
worth the pain. However it should be considered a goal in the long run.
After all that, I tend to remain with the original proposed name. It is at
least easy to pronounce and spell correctly...
More information about the R-devel