[R-pkg-devel] help interpreting a response from CRAN

[Uwe Ligges]

On 23.11.2020 04:13, Roy Mendelssohn - NOAA Federal wrote:
> I have found win-builder timings come close,  but only close.  My experience is that the CRAN timings were uniformly slower than those on win-builder.  But I also find that I can get quite significant differences between win-builder-release and win-builder-devel.  So I also take the slowest that I can find as a basis,  and assume the actual times will be slower than that.

winbuilder and the WIndows check machione for the regulöar checks are 
actually identical.

Best,
Uwe Ligges




> HTH,
> 
> -Roy
> 
>> On Nov 22, 2020, at 5:15 PM, Ben Bolker <bbolker using gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>   And one more (last for a while): presumably there is no way to check CRAN windows timing without submitting to CRAN ... ?  (I will obviously do my best by doing arithmetic on the tests that I set to be skipped, but it would be nice to be able to double-check without wasting everyone's time ... I guess if I knew that CRAN submissions would *always automatically* be rejected with Windows test times>10 min, I could use CRAN submission itself as my test ... but maybe that's a bad idea?)
>>
>> On 11/22/20 4:06 PM, Uwe Ligges wrote:
>>> Thanks Dirk. Yes, for lme4 the tests for each archiecture take longer than 5 min, so the overall check time exceeds 10 min.
>>> So one can follow Dirk's advise.
>>> As a general remark for others who will read this in the future:
>>> tests should test the software, but it is generally not important to have real world examples. Small data and few iterations are typically sufficient for tests.
>>> It is also possible to run less important tests only conditionally if some environment variable is set that you only define on your machine.
>>> Best,
>>> Uwe Ligges
>>> On 22.11.2020 20:36, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 22 November 2020 at 13:44, Ben Bolker wrote:
>>>> |    My current guess is that the problem is with the too-long check time on Windows (NOTE: "Overall checktime 18 min > 10 min")
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>> |   I guess I have to get busy setting more tests and examples to skip-on-CRAN (kind of a pain as there's no low-hanging fruit - other than the 'testthat' tests, none of the individual test files take longer than 15sec, although this is doubled because they have to be run on 386 and x64 ...)
>>>>
>>>> It's under your control. You can detect 'are we on Windows' and branch or, as
>>>> I do with test runner I use, exit_file("...") based on such conditions.
>>>>
>>>> |   An alternative is that this is a confusingly worded message indicating that there are strong rev dependencies so the package needs to be further checked? (That seems unlikely as it explicitly asks me to resubmit)
>>>>
>>>> No. If there were any (even false positive ones) they'd be listed there.
>>>>
>>>> Hth, Dirk
>>>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> R-package-devel using r-project.org mailing list
>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
> 
> **********************
> "The contents of this message do not reflect any position of the U.S. Government or NOAA."
> **********************
> Roy Mendelssohn
> Supervisory Operations Research Analyst
> NOAA/NMFS
> Environmental Research Division
> Southwest Fisheries Science Center
> ***Note new street address***
> 110 McAllister Way
> Santa Cruz, CA 95060
> Phone: (831)-420-3666
> Fax: (831) 420-3980
> e-mail: Roy.Mendelssohn using noaa.gov www: https://www.pfeg.noaa.gov/
> 
> "Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill."
> "From those who have been given much, much will be expected"
> "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice" -MLK Jr.
>