[R-pkg-devel] puzzling CRAN rejection

[Ben Bolker]

   Sure.  I assume I should aim for <10 minutes since that's the 
threshold for a NOTE ...  (for what it's worth the tests take a bit less 
than 25% as long on my Linux laptop, since an individual test run is 
more than twice as fast and we only have to check one architecture ...)

   Do I interpret correctly that the advice is to address this problem, 
bump the version number, and re-submit?

   cheers
    Ben Bolker

On 10/12/20 5:18 PM, Uwe Ligges wrote:
> Actually more than 23 minutes check time for a single package is really 
> excessive, can you pls cut that down?
> 
> This comes from
> 
> ** running tests for arch 'i386' ... [509s] OK
> ** running tests for arch 'x64' ... [501s] OK
> 
> so only tests take 1010 seconds already.
> 
> I see that lme4 is a really important package that may justify some 
> extra check time, but this is really a lot.
> 
> Can you please reduce the check time in the tests? e.g. using toy data 
> and few iterations? Or by running less important tests only 
> conditionally if some environment variable is set that you only define 
> on your machine?
> 
> Best,
> Uwe Ligges
> 
> On 12.10.2020 22:25, Ben Bolker wrote:
>>    Thanks, but I don't think that's the problem because:
>>
>>     (1) Those are reported as being from the last released version, 
>> not this one.
>>     (2) As far as I can tell from my local tests, I'm pretty sure I've 
>> fixed these issues in the current release.
>>     (3) In my experience UBSAN tests don't generally get re-run for a 
>> while after the initial CRAN testing anyway ...
>>
>>    cheers
>>      Ben
>>
>>
>> On 10/12/20 4:23 PM, Iñaki Ucar wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 at 22:04, Ben Bolker <bbolker using gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     Before I risk wasting the CRAN maintainers' time with a query, can
>>>> anyone see what I'm missing here?  Everything I can see looks OK, with
>>>> the possible exception of the 'NA' result for "CRAN incoming
>>>> feasibility" on r-devel-windows-ix86+x86_64 (which surely isn't my 
>>>> fault???)
>>>>
>>>>     Any help appreciated, as always.
>>>>
>>>>     Ben Bolker
>>>
>>> There are UBSAN issues:
>>>
>>>> Last released version's additional issues:
>>>>     gcc-UBSAN 
>>>> <https://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/pub/bdr/memtests/gcc-UBSAN/lme4>
>>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> R-package-devel using r-project.org mailing list
>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel