For the package at
http://www.cs.cas.cz/~savicky/R-devel/something_0.0.0.tar.gz
which is a minor part of some other package only to demonstrate the
problem, i get (under R version 2.11.0 Under development 2009-12-12 r50714
and also under R-2.9.2, openSUSE 11.1 (x86_64) and CentOS release 5.2)
R CMD check something_0.0.0.tar.gz
...
* checking Rd files ... OK
* checking Rd metadata ... OK
* checking Rd cross-references ... OK
* checking for missing documentation entries ... OK
* checking for code/documentation mismatches ... OK
* checking Rd \usage sections ... OK
* checking examples ... NONE
* checking PDF version of manual ... OK
although the package code contains
testCoreNA <- function()
and the documentation contains
\usage{
testCoreClass(verbose=0)
testCoreAttrEval(verbose=0)
testCoreReg(verbose=0)
testCoreNA(verbose=0)
}
There is a mismatch between code and documentation of testCoreNA(). Is the
problem caused by having four entries in \usage{} section?
Hmm, looks more like a thinko in this code inside codoc():
functions_in_code <- Filter(function(f) {
f <- get(f, envir = code_env)
is.function(f) && (length(formals(f)) > 0L)
}, objects_in_code)
which, further down the line, causes functions with no formal arguments
to be skipped when compared to the usage section.
Browse[2]>
debug: ind <- (!functions %in% functions_to_be_ignored & functions %in%
functions_in_code)
Browse[2]> functions
[1] "testCoreClass" "testCoreAttrEval" "testCoreReg"
"testCoreNA"
Browse[2]>
debug: bad_functions <- mapply(functions[ind], exprs[ind], FUN =
function(x,
y) check_codoc(x, as.pairlist(as.alist.call(y[-1L]))), SIMPLIFY =
FALSE)
Browse[2]> ind
[1] TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE
I.e. testCoreNA is never tested by check_codoc. There may of course be
a rationale for this, but it escapes me...