Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 11/12/2008 6:04 PM, Terry Therneau wrote:
I'm making the move of the survival package from my own environment to,
and have stumbled into a vacuum. The R Extensions manual has really
nice
instructions about how to lay out the directories, order the files, and
run tests for DISTRIBUTION of a product, but I can't find anything on how
to set up a reasonable DEVELOPMENT environment.
In my local world, I had the .c and .s files in a common directory,
with
a Makefile that I had created, and the test suite in a subdirectory.
Debugging
and development was quite nice.
make
cd test
R
attach("..")
try something and perhaps it fails
q()
cd ..
Fix and repeat. The Makefile took some time to create, but paid for
itself a
hundred times over.
So, I've now rearranged everything into standard R order. Then I did
the
only thing I could find
R CMD INSTALL ~/myRlib survival where "survival" is said directory.
This turns out to be not useful at all.
The survival package is large, and I rather suspected that I would goof
something up, and I did, resulting in the following message
Error in parse(n = -1, file = file) : unexpected end of input at
14450: }
14451:
It is not exactly obvious which of the 132 files in my R/ directory is
the culprit here.
That's something I would like to fix too. There are (at least) two
possible ways: stop concatenating the files (which is not really needed
nowadays, most packages install saved images), or add some markup to the
concatenated file so that the parser can report on the original filename and
line number (like the #LINE directives output by the C preprocessor).
I would certainly appreciate a fix for this. When this has happened to me,
I usually end up just sourcing the individual files into an R session until
I find the bad file, and get a report with the right line number. It always
seems like a lot of work for something that should be trivial.
In general:
1. The library is large, and recompiling/reparsing everything is very far
from
instantaneous. It is not the edit/load cycle I desire.
If you install from the directory, the compiling should only be done once
(unless you change a file, of course). (The alternative is installing from
the tarball, which is recommended for later stages of testing before
distribution, because it's possible something could go wrong in building the
tarball. But it won't include any object files, so you'll recompile every
time.)
You can also use option "--docs=none" to skip building the help system;
this will save a bit of time.
2. I take testing seriously: the test suite takes on the order of 15
minutes to
run on a fast machine. I most certainly don't want to run it in the mid
cycle.
I don't quite follow this. If you want to run all your tests, you would
use R CMD check. If you only want to run some of them, then you can source
things out of the tests directory while running interactively.
Someone must have tackled this. I'm hoping that there is some
documentation
that I have managed to overlook which discussess a good setup for this
middle
ground between concieving of a library and packaging it for delivery; the
"build, test, make sure it acually works" part of development.
In my experience there are two differ sorts of problems that I think could
benefit from some improvement. The first is that there should be a standard
way to have extra tests, that do not get run in the normal CRAN testing
cycle, or by developers when using a "quick" R CMD check, but can be run
with a standard mechanism. I do this by putting the tests in a separate
package, and I have seen reports of different mechanisms, but I think they
are all somewhat ad hoc. Currently, if you put too much testing in your
package then all the testing gets omitted on some CRAN testing platforms.
Just a common directory like extraTests/ would be a good start.
The second problem is that a developer usually needs to run tests/ when code
in R/ has been changed, but probably not run tests/ when the changes are
only in man/, demos/, or inst/doc/. The checking that needs to be done in
those cases is reduced from the full R CMD check. A common way to attack
this is with a good Makefile. I wrote an article in R News a few years ago
about my attempts to do this, and my Makefiles are available, but there is
some customization necessary, and there is lots of room for improvement. It
does (mostly) work with make -j, so days of testing on a single processor
machine can be accomplished in a few hours on multicore machines (for me,
mileage may vary). I have not addressed the idea of trying to specialize
files in tests/ to specific code files in R/. (I think others have tried to
do this with a "unit testing" approach.)
Paul Gilbert
I find the process I follow is to organize the files in the distribution
structure from the beginning. When adding new functions, I'll generally
use source() a few times to get the syntax right, and perhaps run simple
tests. (But remember, if you use a NAMESPACE, the functions may not behave
the same when they're sourced into the global environment.) In the early
stages, I'll do a lot of installs of the packages.
If I was porting a big package and wanted to find syntax errors, to work
around the not-very-helpful error message you saw I'd do something like
for (f in list.files("pkg/R", full=TRUE)) source(f)
which will report the error more informatively.
Duncan Murdoch
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
====================================================================================
La version française suit le texte anglais.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email may contain privileged and/or confidential in...{{dropped:26}}
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
