no visible binding for global variable for data sets in a package
The change would seem to be this
\item \command{R CMD check} now by default checks code usage
directly on the package namespace without loading and attaching
the package and its suggests and enhances.
and perhaps the remedies could be stated more clearly?
Putting the data objects in the namespace would seem the obvious thing to do.
One oddity is that they are sort of in there already:
Lahman::battingLabels
variable label 1 playerID Player ID code 2 yearID Year 3 stint Player's stint 4 teamID Team 5 lgID League 6 G Games 7 G_batting Games as batter 8 AB At Bats 9 R Runs 10 H Hits 11 X2B Doubles 12 X3B Triples 13 HR Homeruns 14 RBI Runs Batted In 15 SB Stolen Bases 16 CS Caught Stealing 17 BB Base on Balls 18 SO Strikeouts 19 IBB Intentional walks 20 HBP Hit by pitch 21 SH Sacrifice hits 22 SF Sacrifice flies 23 GIDP Grounded into double plays 24 G_Old Old version of games (deprecated) But then again, actually not:
Lahman::Label()
Error in rbind(battingLabels, pitchingLabels, fieldingLabels) : object 'battingLabels' not found This is documented (:: can access datasets made available by lazy-loading), but it sort of suggests that we might want to improve consistency in this area. -pd
On 27 Aug 2014, at 11:24 , Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote:
Michael Friendly <friendly at yorku.ca> on Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:58:34 -0400 writes:
I'm updating the Lahman package of baseball statistics to the 2013 release. In addition to the main data sets, the package also contains several convenience functions that make use of these data sets. These now trigger the notes below from R CMD check run with Win builder, R-devel. How can I avoid these?
* using R Under development (unstable) (2014-08-25 r66471) * using platform: x86_64-w64-mingw32 (64-bit) ... * checking R code for possible problems ... NOTE Label: no visible binding for global variable 'battingLabels' Label: no visible binding for global variable 'pitchingLabels' Label: no visible binding for global variable 'fieldingLabels' battingStats: no visible binding for global variable 'Batting' battingStats: no visible global function definition for 'mutate' playerInfo: no visible binding for global variable 'Master' teamInfo: no visible binding for global variable 'Teams'
One such function:
## function for accessing variable labels
Label <- function(var, labels=rbind(battingLabels, pitchingLabels,
fieldingLabels)) {
wanted <- which(labels[,1]==var)
if (length(wanted)) labels[wanted[1],2] else var
}
and you are using the data sets you mentioned before,
(and the checking has been changed recently here).
This is a bit subtle:
Your data sets are part of your package (thanks to the default
lazyData), but *not* part of the namespace of your package.
Now, the reasoning goes as following: if someone uses a function
from your package, say Label() above,
by
Lahman::Label(..)
and your package has not been attached to the search path,
your user will get an error, as the datasets are not found by
Label().
If you consider something like Lahman::Label(..)
for a bit and the emphasis we put on R functions being the
primary entities, you can understand the current, i.e. new,
R CMD check warnings.
I see the following two options for you:
1) export all these data sets from your NAMESPACE
For this (I thinK), you must define them in Lahman/R/ possibly via a
Lahman/R/sysdata.rda
2) rewrite your functions such that ensure the data sets are
loaded when they are used.
"2)" actually works by adding
stopifnot(require(Lahman, quietly=TRUE))
as first line in Label() and other such functions.
It works in the sense that Lahman::Label("yearID") will
work even when Lahman is not in the search path,
but R-devel CMD check will still give the same NOTE,
though you can argue that that note is actally a "false positive".
Not sure about another elegant way to make "2)" work, apart from
using data() on each of the datasets inside the
function. As I haven't tried it, that may *still* give a
(false) NOTE..
This is a somewhat interesting problem, and I wonder if everyone
else has solved it with '1)' rather than a version of '2)'.
Martin
______________________________________________ R-devel at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Peter Dalgaard, Professor, Center for Statistics, Copenhagen Business School Solbjerg Plads 3, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark Phone: (+45)38153501 Email: pd.mes at cbs.dk Priv: PDalgd at gmail.com