On 25/01/2024 11:44 a.m., Josiah Parry wrote:
The package of course passes R CMD check otherwise it wouldn’t be on CRAN! (:

CRAN doesn't run checks using R 3.6.0. The package claims it works there, and maybe it will, but it won't pass R CMD check.

Duncan Murdoch

Thank you Henrik! Good to know my intuition was correct. I’m glad we can start to use the new features of R in package documentation :)

On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 11:27 Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.dun...@gmail.com <mailto:murdoch.dun...@gmail.com>> wrote:

    On 25/01/2024 11:18 a.m., Henrik Bengtsson wrote:
     > On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 7:48 AM Duncan Murdoch
    <murdoch.dun...@gmail.com <mailto:murdoch.dun...@gmail.com>> wrote:
     >> On 25/01/2024 10:27 a.m., Josiah Parry wrote:
     >>> Hey all,
     >>> I've encountered use of the native pipe operator in the
    examples for
     >>> 'httr2' e.g.
     >>> request("http://example.com <http://example.com>") |> req_dry_run()
     >>> Since r-oldrel (according to rversions::r_oldrel()) is now
    4.2.3, can the
     >>> native pipe be used in example code?
     >>> I do notice that the package httr2 requires R >= 3.6.0 which
    implies that
     >>> the code itself does not use the native pipe, but the examples do.
     >> I think that the package should state it requires R (>= 4.1.0),
     >> that code won't work in earlier versions.
     >> I believe it's a syntax error before 4.1.0, but don't have a
    copy handy
     >> to test.
     > Yes, support for the |> syntax was introduced in R 4.1.0;
     > $ Rscript --vanilla -e "getRversion()" -e "1:10 |> sum()"
     > [1] ‘4.0.5’
     > Error: unexpected '>' in "1:10 |>"
     > Execution halted
     > $ Rscript --vanilla -e "getRversion()" -e "1:10 |> sum()"
     > [1] ‘4.1.0’
     > [1] 55
     >> That means the package won't pass R CMD check in those old
     >> versions.  If it wasn't a syntax error, just a case of using a new
     >> feature, then I think it would be fine to put in a run-time test
    of the
     >> R version to skip code that won't run properly.
     > There's also the distinction of package code versus code in
     > documentation. If it's only example code in help pages that use the
     > native pipe, but the code in R/*.R does not, then the package will
     > still install and work with R (< 4.1.0).  The only thing that won't
     > work is when the user tries to run the code in the documented
     > examples.  I'd argue that it's okay to specify, say, R (>= 3.6.0) in
     > such an example.  It allows users with older versions to still
    use the
     > package, while already now migrating the documentation to use newer
     > syntax.

    Is there a way to do that so that R will pay attention, or do you mean
    just saying it in a comment?

    I think you're right that syntax errors in help page examples will be
    installable, but I don't think there's a way to make them pass "R CMD
    check" other than wrapping them in \dontrun{}, and I don't know a
    way to
    do that conditional on the R version.

    I would say that a package that doesn't pass "R CMD check" without
    errors shouldn't be trusted.

    Duncan Murdoch

R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list

Reply via email to