Vignettes can fail to build for reasons unrelated to code. In that case it
seems  useful to the developer to know whether the the code is failing
(indicating a likely problem in the package itself)  or just the TeX in the
vignette.

Also, I could be wrong about this, but I thought the "run the vignette
code" test happened *before* vignette building.

~G


On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Yihui Xie <xie@yihui.name> wrote:

> Note the test has been done once in weave, since R CMD check will try
> to rebuild vignettes. The problem is whether the related tools in R
> should change their tangle utilities so we can **repeat** the test,
> and it seems the answer is "no" in my eyes.
>
> Regards,
> Yihui
> --
> Yihui Xie <xieyihui@gmail.com>
> Web: http://yihui.name
>
>
> On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Gabriel Becker <gmbecker@ucdavis.edu>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 9:22 PM, Yihui Xie <xie@yihui.name> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Kevin,
> >>
> >>
> >> I tend to adopt Henrik's idea, i.e., to provide vignette
> >> engines that just ignore tangle. At the moment, it seems R CMD check
> >> is comfortable with vignettes that do not have corresponding R
> >> scripts, and I hope these R scripts will not become mandatory in the
> >> future.
> >
> >
> > I'm not sure this is the right approach. This would essentially make the
> > test optional based on decisions by the package author. I'm not arguing
> in
> > favor if this particular test, but if package authors are able to turn a
> > test off then the test loses quite a bit of it's value.
> >
> > I think that R CMD check has done a great deal for the R community by
> > presenting a uniform, minimum "barrier to entry" for R packages. Allowing
> > package developers to alter the tests it does (other than the obvious
> case
> > of their own unit tests) would remove that.
> >
> > That having been said, it seems to me that tangle-like utilities should
> have
> > the option of extracting inline code, and that during R CMD check that
> > option should *always* be turned on.  That would solve the problem in
> > question while retaining the test would it not?
> >
> > ~G
>



-- 
Gabriel Becker
Graduate Student
Statistics Department
University of California, Davis

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

