[R-pkg-devel] Inconsistent R CMD Check results

[Ying Li]

That makes sense, thanks very much for your explanation and advice, Tomas and Uwe!

Best,
Ying
________________________________
From: Uwe Ligges <ligges using statistik.tu-dortmund.de>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 9:52
To: Tomas Kalibera <tomas.kalibera using gmail.com>; Ying Li <yil4013 using med.cornell.edu>; r-package-devel using r-project.org <r-package-devel using r-project.org>
Cc: Arindam RoyChoudhury <arr2014 using med.cornell.edu>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [R-pkg-devel] Inconsistent R CMD Check results



On 24.01.2023 22:03, Tomas Kalibera wrote:
> On 1/23/23 17:51, Ying Li via R-package-devel wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Hope you are well! Recently, in the check before a re-submission, I
>> got an unexpected note when doing R CMD Check using
>> rhub::check_for_cran(), saying that "Examples with CPU (user + system)
>> or elapsed time > 5s".
>>
>> I didn't expect this note to appear because the same examples didn't
>> cause this note in the previous submission last December. Compared
>> with the previous submission, we only edited documentation, there was
>> no change in the R code for functions of our package.
>>
>> To double-check, I downloaded our previous submission from CRAN and
>> checked it again. It's strange that this current CRAN version also has
>> this note now. However, when submitting it last December, there were
>> no such notes. Do you have any idea why the R CMD Check results are
>> inconsistent?
>
> You could check on Winbuilder as that is a concrete setup used for
> incoming checks. But in principle, the computation may take longer
> because of changes in dependencies, external software and R. Which can
> be due to a performance regression, a bugfix, etc. Only
> debugging/profiling could reveal the true cause.

Yes, it may even be some OS update, or just coincidence that the system
was idling the last time your package got checked.
Note that CRAN systems are expected to be slower than, e.g., your
laptop, as the servers use multi core CPUs with rather low frequencies.

Best,
Uwe Ligges




>> Since the examples caused no note in the last submission and were
>> successfully submitted to CRAN, I'm not sure whether I should change
>> the examples in this re-submission to eliminate this sudden note. Any
>> suggestions will be appreciated!
> If you were close to the limit last time, it may be a coincidence and
> you might simply reduce the examples to be on the safe side.
>
> Tomas
>
>>
>> Thank you!
>> Ying
>>
>>     [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> R-package-devel using r-project.org mailing list
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__stat.ethz.ch_mailman_listinfo_r-2Dpackage-2Ddevel&d=DwIDaQ&c=lb62iw4YL4RFalcE2hQUQealT9-RXrryqt9KZX2qu2s&r=bP8EQnZ_JVp-Bf-Rt9gvjFVaFYbqdYei_Hbkmzh0LNc&m=eLlMF2DixVEB3UPnbyg6ZeQMZ1z2DEeFgsJnjG7ZOkd8aWS2QLCazYACWGs5Jb-_&s=J5wxZE1CYC6I4jZ-omVH9Fq0hOJuvUarBD9ckVePRe4&e=
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-package-devel using r-project.org mailing list
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__stat.ethz.ch_mailman_listinfo_r-2Dpackage-2Ddevel&d=DwIDaQ&c=lb62iw4YL4RFalcE2hQUQealT9-RXrryqt9KZX2qu2s&r=bP8EQnZ_JVp-Bf-Rt9gvjFVaFYbqdYei_Hbkmzh0LNc&m=eLlMF2DixVEB3UPnbyg6ZeQMZ1z2DEeFgsJnjG7ZOkd8aWS2QLCazYACWGs5Jb-_&s=J5wxZE1CYC6I4jZ-omVH9Fq0hOJuvUarBD9ckVePRe4&e=

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]