[R-pkg-devel] testing coercion

Kevin Coombes kevin@r@coombe@ @ending from gm@il@com
Thu Dec 6 18:52:00 CET 2018

Thanks for the suggestion. But it may not be quite expressive enough; I
think I will instead use

 > ifelse(getRversion() < "3.6.0",
 >           ! canCoerce(wv, "double"),   # fails in older versions
 >              canCoerce(wv, "double"))  # works in newer versions

That way, when I update the package six months from now, I might have a
chance of remembering what was going on.


On 12/6/2018 11:41 AM, Sebastian Meyer wrote:
> Hi Kevin,
> I think using
>> canCoerce(wv, "double") || getRversion() < "3.6.0"
> could solve the issue of an inconsistent test result and is descriptive.
> Best regards,
>       Sebastian
> Am 06.12.18 um 16:59 schrieb Kevin Coombes:
>>   Hi,
>> A package I recently submitted to CRAN includes an S4 class that defines a
>> method to coerce from that class to a numeric vector, basically through
>>>   setAs("myClass", "numeric", function(from) from using psi)
>> Being perhaps overly compulsive about trying to test everything while
>> documenting behavior, my accompanying test script includes these lines:
>>> try( as.numeric(wv) )            # should fail
>>> canCoerce(wv, "numeric")   # returns TRUE
>>> canCoerce(wv, "double")     # gets a complaint from CRAN incoming pretest
>> The complaint on the last line arises because
>> + in the current version of R, the answer is FALSE
>> + in the development version of R, the answer is TRUE
>> The change is (probably) documented on the R-devel daily news from 04 Sept
>> 2018, which lists
>> Bug Fix:  as(1L, "double") now does coerce (PR#17457)
>> So, here's my question. Do I remove this test (and thus lose my
>> documentation of how the method behaves) in order to get the incoming
>> precheck to stop whinging? Or do I tell the CRAN maintainers to not worry
>> about the test changing, since it's due to a core bug fix, and promise to
>> change my saved test results when the devel version becomes current? (Even
>> though the fixed results will then show up as wrong in the "oldrel" tests.)
>> Best,
>>    Kevin
>>      [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>> ______________________________________________
>> R-package-devel using r-project.org mailing list
>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
> ______________________________________________
> R-package-devel using r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel

More information about the R-package-devel mailing list