It would be nice if R CMD check ran any file in the tests directory that has "one of the extensions .R, .S, .q, .r, or .s" - i.e. it should match the files processed in the R directory. Hadley
R CMD check: small tests suggestion
3 messages · Hadley Wickham, Brian Ripley
On Sat, 3 May 2008, hadley wickham wrote:
It would be nice if R CMD check ran any file in the tests directory that has "one of the extensions .R, .S, .q, .r, or .s" - i.e. it should match the files processed in the R directory.
Whereas what it is documented in 'Writing R Extensions' is to use .R or .Rin files. This leaves the other extensions available for other purposes -- the difference is that there should be no other files in the R directory, but often will be in the tests directory. I have some sympathy for .r (which we allow for demos) given the prevalence of case-insensitive file systems, but why would it be 'nice' to have the others? And what would the output file be called? Should .S be processed to .Sout and matched to a .Sout.save file? This would seem to introduce more confusion that it might remove.
Brian D. Ripley, ripley at stats.ox.ac.uk Professor of Applied Statistics, http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/ University of Oxford, Tel: +44 1865 272861 (self) 1 South Parks Road, +44 1865 272866 (PA) Oxford OX1 3TG, UK Fax: +44 1865 272595
It would be nice if R CMD check ran any file in the tests directory that has "one of the extensions .R, .S, .q, .r, or .s" - i.e. it should match the files processed in the R directory.
Whereas what it is documented in 'Writing R Extensions' is to use .R or .Rin files. This leaves the other extensions available for other purposes -- the difference is that there should be no other files in the R directory, but often will be in the tests directory. I have some sympathy for .r (which we allow for demos) given the prevalence of case-insensitive file systems, but why would it be 'nice' to have the others? And what would the output file be called? Should .S be processed to .Sout and matched to a .Sout.save file? This would seem to introduce more confusion that it might remove.
Those are good points - .r is the extension that I really want as it would have saved me much frustration trying to figure out why my tests weren't running. An alternative would be to report * checking tests ... No test files found rather than * checking tests ... OK in the case in which there are no files run in the tests directory. Hadley