Hello, Thank you very much for your prompt reply on a weekend. I am testing my examples locally, and I am noticing that they did not get slower actually. So far I have tested 3 of them and they are in the order of 3 or 4 seconds. So, shall I repeat the test later (or another day)?
When it comes to your second question, in my new version’s DESCRIPTION file the following are mentioned (Imports): spatstat.geom (>= 1.65-5), spatstat.core (>= 1.65-5), spatstat.linnet (>= 2.0-0), spatstat (>= 2.0-0) Any further hint? Thank you for your time Best Gianmarco ************************************************ Dr Gianmarco Alberti (PhD Udine) Lecturer in Spatial Forensics Coordinator of the BA dissertations Department of Criminology Faculty for Social Wellbeing Room 332, Humanities B (FEMA) University of Malta, Msida, Malta (Europe) - MSD 2080 tel +356 2340 3718 Academic profiles https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gianmarco_Alberti4 https://malta.academia.edu/GianmarcoAlberti Google Scholar profile https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=tFrJKQ0AAAAJ&hl=en Correspondence Analysis website http://cainarchaeology.weebly.com/ R packages on CRAN: CAinterprTools https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/CAinterprTools/index.html GmAMisc https://cran.r-project.org/package=GmAMisc movecost https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/movecost/index.html ************************************************ On 21 Mar 2021, 13:46 +0100, Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.dun...@gmail.com>, wrote: > On 21/03/2021 7:18 a.m., Gianmarco Alberti wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I am in the process of testing a new version of my GmAMisc package before > > submitting it to CRAN. > > > > I have checked it using: > > (a) devtools::check_win_devel() > > https://win-builder.r-project.org/T9yi5bawc203 > > > > (b) devtools::check_win_release() > > https://win-builder.r-project.org/VACDopQ9QBMi > > > > (c) devtools::check_win_oldrelease() > > https://win-builder.r-project.org/yoIK3iE7IZqk > > > > Now, > > (a) returns 2 notes about functions’ examples whose execution time is > > larger than 10 sec > > This didn’t happen when testing earlier versions of the same package. I did > > not make any major change to those functions, excluding updating some > > chunks of code to adapt them to the new structure of the ‘spatstat' > > package. Most of my functions whose execution time is larger than 10 sec > > are feature Monte Carlo-based resampling; I have tried to reduce the number > > of randomised iterations (e.g., from 199 to 99) but no significant changes > > were produced when it comes to the execution time. > > Did the examples actually become slower? You can time them locally: > you won't get the same timings as Win-builder, but relative timings > should be roughly proportional. > > If they did become slower, then you really should modify the examples. > This might mean using an unrealistically small number of iterations; > that's better than not running them at all, because at least it will > show users how your functions work. > > Or maybe Win-builder was under heavy load, and that's why the timings > are slower. You could take a chance and submit with a note about this. > > > > > (b) returns the same two notes as (a) > > > > (c) returns 1 error: > > Package required and available but unsuitable version: ‘spatstat.linnet' > > How are you stating your dependency on this package? Your current > version only mentions "spatstat (>= 1.56-0)". CRAN has spatstat.linnet > 2.0-0, but perhaps Win-builder hadn't updated its old release library to > that version when you ran your test. > > Duncan Murdoch > > > > > I am wondering: > > (1) are the 2 notes returned by (a) and (b) a relevant obstacle when it > > comes to getting my new version on CRAN? I am a little concerned because I > > do not know how to reduce the execution time further. > > > > (2) why the difference between (a)-(b) and (c) when it comes to the error > > related to spatstat.linnet? Is the error returned by (c) fatal in > > anticipation of submitting the package to CRAN? If it is, how can I tackle > > that? > > > > > > Thank you in advance for any help on the above issues. > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] ______________________________________________ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
