Hi all, I have recently been researching how available.packages and install.packages filter packages from repositories with additional fields in their PACKAGES file. Currently there are some default filters, but users (and R admins) can set up their own filters by passing a list to the fields argument or adding them to the "available_packages_filters" option. But if the fields used by the filters are not read by default, then users must manually add the required fields to each call to available.packages. This makes it difficult to use new fields and to control what is installed in highly regulated systems which want to use more fields to select what is installed. Current workarounds considered are: 1) The filtering function requiring new fields intercepts the call to available.packages and adds the desired fields via eval in parent.environment and then adds the filters again. 2) Import new data (remote or local) when filtering packages, merge them and filter accordingly. 3) Suggestions? The first solution is complicated, while the second doesn't use the R machinery of tools::write_PACKAGES to set up the repository with all the fields (although how to add more fields to the repository file is a different issue). Would it be possible to add a new option to add fields to be read by available.packages, similar to filters? The same approach for fields as for filters would avoid the two workarounds mentioned. To match it, the new option could be named "available_packages_fields". I look forward to hearing from you, Llu?s
Fields used by available.packages
4 messages · Lluís Revilla, Kurt Hornik
3 days later
Llu?s Revilla writes:
Lluis,
So in available.packages() I could replace
if (is.null(fields))
fields <- requiredFields
else {
stopifnot(is.character(fields))
fields <- unique(c(requiredFields, fields))
}
by someting like
if(is.null(fields))
fields <- getOption("available_packages_fields")
if(is.null(fields))
fields <- requiredFields
else {
stopifnot(is.character(fields))
fields <- unique(c(requiredFields, fields))
}
?
Best
-k
Hi all, I have recently been researching how available.packages and install.packages filter packages from repositories with additional fields in their PACKAGES file.
Currently there are some default filters, but users (and R admins) can set up their own filters by passing a list to the fields argument or adding them to the "available_packages_filters" option. But if the fields used by the filters are not read by default, then users must manually add the required fields to each call to available.packages.
This makes it difficult to use new fields and to control what is installed in highly regulated systems which want to use more fields to select what is installed.
Current workarounds considered are: 1) The filtering function requiring new fields intercepts the call to available.packages and adds the desired fields via eval in parent.environment and then adds the filters again. 2) Import new data (remote or local) when filtering packages, merge them and filter accordingly. 3) Suggestions?
The first solution is complicated, while the second doesn't use the R machinery of tools::write_PACKAGES to set up the repository with all the fields (although how to add more fields to the repository file is a different issue).
Would it be possible to add a new option to add fields to be read by available.packages, similar to filters? The same approach for fields as for filters would avoid the two workarounds mentioned. To match it, the new option could be named "available_packages_fields".
I look forward to hearing from you,
Llu?s
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________ R-devel at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Yes, I think that would be enough. Thank you, Kurt! Llu?s
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 at 16:35, Kurt Hornik <Kurt.Hornik at wu.ac.at> wrote:
Llu?s Revilla writes:
Lluis,
So in available.packages() I could replace
if (is.null(fields))
fields <- requiredFields
else {
stopifnot(is.character(fields))
fields <- unique(c(requiredFields, fields))
}
by someting like
if(is.null(fields))
fields <- getOption("available_packages_fields")
if(is.null(fields))
fields <- requiredFields
else {
stopifnot(is.character(fields))
fields <- unique(c(requiredFields, fields))
}
?
Best
-k
Hi all, I have recently been researching how available.packages and install.packages filter packages from repositories with additional fields in their PACKAGES file.
Currently there are some default filters, but users (and R admins) can
set
up their own filters by passing a list to the fields argument or adding them to the "available_packages_filters" option. But if the fields used by the filters are not read by default, then users must manually add the required fields to each call to available.packages.
This makes it difficult to use new fields and to control what is
installed
in highly regulated systems which want to use more fields to select what
is
installed.
Current workarounds considered are: 1) The filtering function requiring new fields intercepts the call to available.packages and adds the desired fields via eval in parent.environment and then adds the filters again. 2) Import new data (remote or local) when filtering packages, merge them and filter accordingly. 3) Suggestions?
The first solution is complicated, while the second doesn't use the R machinery of tools::write_PACKAGES to set up the repository with all the fields (although how to add more fields to the repository file is a different issue).
Would it be possible to add a new option to add fields to be read by available.packages, similar to filters? The same approach for fields as for filters would avoid the two
workarounds
mentioned. To match it, the new option could be named "available_packages_fields".
I look forward to hearing from you,
Llu?s
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________ R-devel at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
Llu?s Revilla writes:
Yes, I think that would be enough.?
Thanks. And of course add documentation ... Will try to get this in in the next few days. Best -k
Thank you, Kurt!
Llu?s
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 at 16:35, Kurt Hornik <Kurt.Hornik at wu.ac.at> wrote:
Llu?s Revilla writes:
Lluis,
So in available.packages() I could replace
? ? if (is.null(fields))
? ? ? ? fields <- requiredFields
? ? else {
? ? ? ? stopifnot(is.character(fields))
? ? ? ? fields <- unique(c(requiredFields, fields))
? ? }
by someting like
? ? if(is.null(fields))
? ? ? ? fields <- getOption("available_packages_fields")
? ? if(is.null(fields))
? ? ? ? fields <- requiredFields
? ? else {
? ? ? ? stopifnot(is.character(fields))
? ? ? ? fields <- unique(c(requiredFields, fields))
? ? }
?
Best
-k
Hi all, I have recently been researching how available.packages and install.packages filter packages from repositories with additional
fields
in their PACKAGES file.
Currently there are some default filters, but users (and R admins) can
set
up their own filters by passing a list to the fields argument or adding them to the "available_packages_filters" option. But if the fields used by the filters are not read by default, then
users
must manually add the required fields to each call to
available.packages.
This makes it difficult to use new fields and to control what is
installed
in highly regulated systems which want to use more fields to select
what is
installed.
Current workarounds considered are: ? 1) The filtering function requiring new fields intercepts the call to available.packages and adds the desired fields via eval in parent.environment and then adds the filters again. ? 2) Import new data (remote or local) when filtering packages, merge
them
and filter accordingly. ? 3) Suggestions?
The first solution is complicated, while the second doesn't use the R machinery of tools::write_PACKAGES to set up the repository with all
the
fields (although how to add more fields to the repository file is a different issue).
Would it be possible to add a new option to add fields to be read by available.packages, similar to filters? The same approach for fields as for filters would avoid the two
workarounds
mentioned. To match it, the new option could be named "available_packages_fields".
I look forward to hearing from you,
Llu?s
? ? ? ?[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________ R-devel at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel