On 17.05.2012 17:56, Matthew Dowle wrote:
Uwe Ligges<ligges<at> statistik.tu-dortmund.de> writes:
On 17.05.2012 16:52, Brian G. Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 2012-05-17 at 16:32 +0200, Uwe Ligges wrote:
Yes: R CMD check does the trick. See Writing R Extension and read
about a package's test directory. I prefer frameworks that do not
obfuscate failing test results on the CRAN check farm (as most other
frameworks I have seen).
Uwe: I don't think that's completely fair. RUnit and testthat tests
can be configured to be called from the R package tests directory, so
that they are run during R CMD check.
They don't *need* to be configured that way, so perhaps that's what
you're talking about.
I am talking about the problem that relevant output of test failures
that may help to identify the problem is frequently not shown in the
output of R CMD check when such frameworks are used - that is a major
nuisance for CRAN automatisms.
Not sure, but could it be that in some cases the output of test failures is
there, but chopped off since CRAN displays the 13 line tail? At least that's
what I've experienced, and reported, and asked to be increased in the past.
Often the first error causes a cascade, so it's the head you need to see, not
the tail. If I've got that right, how about a much larger limit than 13, say
1000. Or the first 50 and last 50 lines of output.
R always reports the whole diffs of the tests.
Uwe
Matthew
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
