That log ends with status OK, so is that the run that had the problem? Isn't that time exceeded message in the log somewhere?
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 at 11:41, Murray Efford via R-package-devel < r-package-devel@r-project.org> wrote: > On the face of it, I would need to throw out all the examples, and all > the tests. That can't be right. Am I wrong to take the times in the log at > face value? Where did the other 6 minutes go? Please excuse my obtuseness. > ________________________________ > From: Dirk Eddelbuettel <e...@debian.org> > Sent: Tuesday, 3 June 2025 12:54 > To: Murray Efford <murray.eff...@otago.ac.nz> > Cc: R Package Development <r-package-devel@r-project.org> > Subject: Re: [R-pkg-devel] Check time > 10min > > > On 3 June 2025 at 00:12, Murray Efford via R-package-devel wrote: > | My revision of package 'secr' fails CRAN pre-test on Windows (R 4.5.0) > because total check time exceeds 10 min (it's 760 seconds or 13 min). I > can't see how to fix this as none of the times listed in the log > https://win-builder.r-project.org/incoming_pretest/secr_5.2.2_20250602_054847/Windows/00check.log > < > https://win-builder.r-project.org/incoming_pretest/secr_5.2.2_20250602_054847/Windows/00check.log> > seems exceptional: > | * checking CRAN incoming feasibility ... [18s] OK > | * checking R code for possible problems ... [116s] OK > | * checking examples ... [87s] OK > | * checking tests ... [59s] OK > | * checking re-building of vignette outputs ... [42s] OK > | * checking PDF version of manual ... [32s] OK > | * checking HTML version of manual ... [42s] OK > | and the total of these components is only 396 sec (6.6 min), so I must > be missing something. I would appreciate any advice. Not much was added in > this release, and I don't like the idea of blindly hacking off bits. > > To a first approximation every tests is a function of some variable we can > describe as 'N' which you, as author of the package and the tests, > understand > best. > > Surely you must know a way to define a new N1 <- N/2, or some other > appropriate scaling. Then try running with N1 instead. And you can also > make > both tests and examples _conditional_ on some other control variable. > > It's all just code. Bend it like Beckham. > > Dirk > > | > | [[alternative HTML version deleted]] > | > | ______________________________________________ > | R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list > | https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel< > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel> > > -- > dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org > > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] > > ______________________________________________ > R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] ______________________________________________ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
