[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: R package CI test failures



On 3 May 2016 at 22:53, Andreas Tille wrote:
| If we do not receive any hint from upstream removing this test seems to
[...]
| Hoping for upstream to respond to my first mail.  I might ping at
[...]
| I might ping upstream.
[...]

They won't know what you are talking about, and for a reason.  The R community
is pretty strict about testing and it (nowadays) _always_ involves

   R CMD check [possible switches]  somePackage_1.2-3.tar.gz

for which R correctly sets up input/output directories, permissions, finds
required files etc pp via a temporary installation during the test step.

If you now come to them and claim it 'fails to us' then that may well be due
to us doing things differently (ie /usr/share/R and /usr/lib/R; normally R
only has one which is why system.file("foo", package="bar") always finds foo
within bar's tree.

So what they release matches stringent and frequently repeated tests at their
end -- one of the reasons CRAN and BioConductor "just work".

The issue is pretty at your end by deploying the tests scripts in a different
way. Hence, I would go as far as suggesting not to contact upstream on this. 

Dirk

-- 
http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | edd@debian.org


Reply to: