[R-pkg-devel] What is best practice for handling false negatives on CRAN submission tests?

[Daniel Kelley]

Ah, maybe the problem is in the C++ warnings.

I'll fix those up in my own version, and then wait a week or two to see if this was the cause.

Thanks, Ivan and Duncan, for your quick and very helpful replies, on a weekend.

> On Mar 19, 2022, at 10:26 AM, Ivan Krylov <krylov.r00t using gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> CAUTION: The Sender of this email is not from within Dalhousie.
> 
> On Sat, 19 Mar 2022 12:14:30 +0000
> Daniel Kelley <Dan.Kelley using Dal.Ca> wrote:
> 
>> Would I be sensible to wait a couple of weeks for a reply?
> 
> I agree with Duncan, I'd wait for days, not weeks.
> 
>> I ask because the schedule would have oce being auto-removed from
>> CRAN early next month, and I worry a bit about that happening because
>> of an email that went missing, or because I was unclear on how to
>> communicate with CRAN.
> 
> From your description, I think you're doing everything right. I've seen
> individual reviewers reject a package after a review by mistake (during
> a heroic struggle against a ~100-package long "newbies" queue), but not
> the automated system.
> 
> The pressure is real, I hope you manage to resolve the problems on time!
> 
>> Anyway, the email I got back from CRAN told me that oce-1.7.2 had
>> failed initial tests.  However, the email makes it seem that those
>> tests had actually been passed.
> 
>> package oce_1.7-2.tar.gz does not pass the incoming checks
>> automatically, please see the following pre-tests:
>> Windows:
>> <https://win-builder.r-project.org/incoming_pretest/oce_1.7-2_20220317_190259/Windows/00check.log>
>> Status: OK
> 
>> Debian:
>> <https://win-builder.r-project.org/incoming_pretest/oce_1.7-2_20220317_190259/Debian/00check.log>
>> Status: OK
> 
> This does seem like it shouldn't be have auto-rejected the package,
> though if I go take a look at the installation logs, I see compiler
> warnings:
> 
> https://win-builder.r-project.org/incoming_pretest/oce_1.7-2_20220317_190259/Debian/00install.out
> 
> "Variable set but not used" is mostly harmless, but should be easy to
> fix, likely by removing said variable.
> 
> https://win-builder.r-project.org/incoming_pretest/oce_1.7-2_20220317_190259/Windows/00install.out
> 
> "Comparison of integer expressions of different signedness: 'unsigned
> int' and 'long int'" could be more serious in corner cases (files
> of size > 2G). Typically, the variable being compared to ftell() should
> be defined as the same type as the return value of ftell().
> 
> Unfortunately, I don't know whether these were the reason for rejection.
> 
>> Last released version's CRAN status: OK: 3, NOTE: 6, WARNING: 1,
>> ERROR: 3
> 
> This is also normal, especially if you explained that you fixed the
> previously failing tests in the submission comment.
> 
>> Best regards,
>> CRAN teams' auto-check service
>> Flavor: r-devel-windows-x86_64
>> Check: CRAN incoming feasibility, Result: NA
>> Maintainer: 'Dan Kelley <Dan.Kelley using Dal.Ca>'
> 
> Hmm, where does this come from? The NA result looks ominous.
> 
>> Flavor: r-devel-windows-x86_64
>> Check: Overall checktime, Result: NOTE
>> Overall checktime 14 min > 10 min
> 
> Is this from the reverse dependency check? Does this mean it needs to
> take less time?
> 
> --
> Best regards,
> Ivan