[R-pkg-devel] ‘Package required and available but unsuitable version’ and notes about examples execution time

[Duncan Murdoch]

On 21/03/2021 9:12 a.m., Gianmarco Alberti wrote:
> Hello,
> Thank you very much for your prompt reply on a weekend.
> 
> I am testing my examples locally, and I am noticing that they did not 
> get slower actually. So far I have tested 3 of them and they are in the 
> order of 3 or 4 seconds. So, shall I repeat the test later (or another day)?
> 
> When it comes to your second question, in my new version’s DESCRIPTION 
> file the following are mentioned (Imports):
> spatstat.geom (>= 1.65-5),
> spatstat.core (>= 1.65-5),
> spatstat.linnet (>= 2.0-0),
> spatstat (>= 2.0-0)
> 

I think you should be fine with no more changes.  Mention the issues you 
saw in your submission message, but it looks to me like a transient 
issue on Win-builder.

Duncan Murdoch

> 
> Any further hint?
> 
> Thank you for your time
> Best
> Gianmarco
> 
> ************************************************
> Dr Gianmarco Alberti (PhD Udine)
> /Lecturer in Spatial Forensics
> /Coordinator of the BA dissertations
> Department of Criminology
> Faculty for Social Wellbeing
> Room 332, Humanities B (FEMA)
> University of Malta, Msida, Malta (Europe) - MSD 2080
> tel +356 2340 3718
> 
> Academic profiles
> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gianmarco_Alberti4 
> <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gianmarco_Alberti4>
> https://malta.academia.edu/GianmarcoAlberti 
> <https://malta.academia.edu/GianmarcoAlberti>
> 
> Google Scholar profile
> https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=tFrJKQ0AAAAJ&hl=en 
> <https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=tFrJKQ0AAAAJ&hl=en>
> 
> Correspondence Analysis website
> _http://cainarchaeology.weebly.com/ <http://cainarchaeology.weebly.com/>_
> 
> R packages on CRAN:
> CAinterprTools
> https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/CAinterprTools/index.html 
> <https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/CAinterprTools/index.html>
> 
> GmAMisc
> https://cran.r-project.org/package=GmAMisc 
> <https://cran.r-project.org/package=GmAMisc>
> 
> movecost
> https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/movecost/index.html 
> <https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/movecost/index.html>
> ************************************************
> On 21 Mar 2021, 13:46 +0100, Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan using gmail.com>, 
> wrote:
>> On 21/03/2021 7:18 a.m., Gianmarco Alberti wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I am in the process of testing a new version of my GmAMisc package 
>>> before submitting it to CRAN.
>>>
>>> I have checked it using:
>>> (a) devtools::check_win_devel()
>>> https://win-builder.r-project.org/T9yi5bawc203
>>>
>>> (b) devtools::check_win_release()
>>> https://win-builder.r-project.org/VACDopQ9QBMi
>>>
>>> (c) devtools::check_win_oldrelease()
>>> https://win-builder.r-project.org/yoIK3iE7IZqk
>>>
>>> Now,
>>> (a) returns 2 notes about functions’ examples whose execution time is 
>>> larger than 10 sec
>>> This didn’t happen when testing earlier versions of the same package. 
>>> I did not make any major change to those functions, excluding 
>>> updating some chunks of code to adapt them to the new structure of 
>>> the ‘spatstat' package. Most of my functions whose execution time is 
>>> larger than 10 sec are feature Monte Carlo-based resampling; I have 
>>> tried to reduce the number of randomised iterations (e.g., from 199 
>>> to 99) but no significant changes were produced when it comes to the 
>>> execution time.
>>
>> Did the examples actually become slower? You can time them locally:
>> you won't get the same timings as Win-builder, but relative timings
>> should be roughly proportional.
>>
>> If they did become slower, then you really should modify the examples.
>> This might mean using an unrealistically small number of iterations;
>> that's better than not running them at all, because at least it will
>> show users how your functions work.
>>
>> Or maybe Win-builder was under heavy load, and that's why the timings
>> are slower. You could take a chance and submit with a note about this.
>>
>>>
>>> (b) returns the same two notes as (a)
>>>
>>> (c) returns 1 error:
>>> Package required and available but unsuitable version: ‘spatstat.linnet'
>>
>> How are you stating your dependency on this package? Your current
>> version only mentions "spatstat (>= 1.56-0)". CRAN has spatstat.linnet
>> 2.0-0, but perhaps Win-builder hadn't updated its old release library to
>> that version when you ran your test.
>>
>> Duncan Murdoch
>>
>>>
>>> I am wondering:
>>> (1) are the 2 notes returned by (a) and (b) a relevant obstacle when 
>>> it comes to getting my new version on CRAN? I am a little concerned 
>>> because I do not know how to reduce the execution time further.
>>>
>>> (2) why the difference between (a)-(b) and (c) when it comes to the 
>>> error related to spatstat.linnet? Is the error returned by (c) fatal 
>>> in anticipation of submitting the package to CRAN? If it is, how can 
>>> I tackle that?
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you in advance for any help on the above issues.
>>