[R-pkg-devel] Need help with "Lost braces" in R under development checks

[Georgi Boshnakov]

The braces are lost in the sense that they are superfluous (not typeset in the pdf manual but may be typeset in other formats. In your example \doi has one argument, so the braces enclosing the following phrase are superfluous.

This may not be harmful here but since CRAN introduced the NOTE it has uncovered thousands of actual typos and similar.

As to the 'invalid url', you can ignore it when you are sure that it is correct - some sites don't like being accessed programatically and start blocking the caller (eg if you run R checks several times in succession).


Georgi Boshnakov

Sent from Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
________________________________
From: R-package-devel <r-package-devel-bounces using r-project.org> on behalf of adinno using pdx.edu <adinno using pdx.edu>
Sent: Sunday, April 7, 2024 5:58:57 AM
To: r-package-devel using r-project.org <r-package-devel using r-project.org>
Subject: [R-pkg-devel] Need help with "Lost braces" in R under development checks


Hello,

I would appreciate help with two build NOTEs:


First, On the Winbuilder check, the check for R version 4.4.0 alpha
(2024-04-05 r86346 ucrt) and also under the Debian R Under development
(unstable) (2024-04-05 r86348) I got a NOTE about a bunch of 'Lost
braces' in my .Rd files. I am confused because my braces appear to match
when I count them, and I don't *think* I am runing into an item/itemize
situation. Here's an example (all the reported issues in this NOTE are
within \references sections ):

  checkRd: (-1) LoopAnalyst-package.Rd:14: Lost braces
    14 |  Dambacher, J. M. and Li, H. W. and Rossignol, P. A. (2002)
  \doi{10.2307/3071950}{Relevance of community structure in assessing
  indeterminacy of ecological predictions}. \emph{Ecology},
  \bold{83(5)},1372--1385.

Here's the Winbuilder log:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://win-builder.r-project.org/incoming_pretest/LoopAnalyst_1.2-7_20240406_215835/Windows/00check.log__;!!PDiH4ENfjr2_Jw!A109ZbFKcZjQ25lSt1JJSlLziJ-IyfouQzdKPv5pnUKRq_3-RoKd52MVDkHUoho-VQ5Ld85q6WmdGwh5eSSWPstUjY95nA$ [win-builder[.]r-project[.]org]

And here's the Debian log:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://win-builder.r-project.org/incoming_pretest/LoopAnalyst_1.2-7_20240406_215835/Debian/00check.log__;!!PDiH4ENfjr2_Jw!A109ZbFKcZjQ25lSt1JJSlLziJ-IyfouQzdKPv5pnUKRq_3-RoKd52MVDkHUoho-VQ5Ld85q6WmdGwh5eSSWPstlRfRWeA$ [win-builder[.]r-project[.]org]


The second NOTE is about "(possibly) invalid URLs:"
  URL: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/367590__;!!PDiH4ENfjr2_Jw!A109ZbFKcZjQ25lSt1JJSlLziJ-IyfouQzdKPv5pnUKRq_3-RoKd52MVDkHUoho-VQ5Ld85q6WmdGwh5eSSWPsuMHqle7Q$ [journals[.]uchicago[.]edu]
    Status: 403
    Message: Forbidden

However, when I follow this URL in my browser it appears to link
appropriately to the intended page. If I use a \doi{10.1086/367590}
instead of an \href I get the same behavior: check says "(possibly)
invalid URLs" but https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://doi.org/10.1086/367590__;!!PDiH4ENfjr2_Jw!A109ZbFKcZjQ25lSt1JJSlLziJ-IyfouQzdKPv5pnUKRq_3-RoKd52MVDkHUoho-VQ5Ld85q6WmdGwh5eSSWPstaKkb77Q$ [doi[.]org] appears to work just
fine in the browser. Not sure what I am doing wrong here.



Thank you!


Alexis Dinno
Associate Professor
OHSU-PSU School of Public Health
Pronouns: she/her/hers

610-R Vanport Building
1810 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 610
Portland, OR 97201-5202

p: (503) 725-3076
f: (503) 725-5100
e: alexis.dinno using pdx.edu

Note: I do not use a networked calendar, so meeting dates should be communicated directly via email.

______________________________________________
R-package-devel using r-project.org mailing list
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel__;!!PDiH4ENfjr2_Jw!A109ZbFKcZjQ25lSt1JJSlLziJ-IyfouQzdKPv5pnUKRq_3-RoKd52MVDkHUoho-VQ5Ld85q6WmdGwh5eSSWPssk-Dl_sw$ [stat[.]ethz[.]ch]

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]