On 13/10/2020 5:33 a.m., Iñaki Ucar wrote:
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 at 01:47, Ben Bolker <bbol...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/12/20 7:37 PM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 12/10/2020 6:51 p.m., Ben Bolker wrote:
On 10/12/20 6:36 PM, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
On 12/10/2020 6:14 p.m., Ben Bolker wrote:
I'd say a mismatch in saved output isn't a small problem, it's
either a
too-sensitive test or something serious.
Duncan Murdoch
That's fair enough, but it would be nice if (1) this were a
NOTE and
I don't think so. As I said, I think it should be marked as an ERROR.
OK. But it would probably be wise (if the CRAN maintainers actually
wanted to do this) to crank it up from silent -> NOTE -> WARNING ->
ERROR over the course of several releases so as not to have widespread
test failures on CRAN right away ...
Do you think so? Why would you put saved results into the package
unless you want to test if they match?
My point was just that it would be disruptive to switch the severity
of such mismatches from 'message, no NOTE' to 'ERROR' in a single step -
I'd imagine it could lead to a very large number of CRAN packages
suddenly failing their tests.
Hold on, are we sure this is detected at all? The result of the tests
is reported as OK. The "singular fit" message goes to stderr, so my
guess is that it is not compared against the saved output at all.
It is reported in the 00check.log file; I gave the link to the report.
I think it's a bug in the check code that the check log reports OK at
the end, when (what should be) a fatal error has been displayed.
Duncan Murdoch
______________________________________________
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
