[R-pkg-devel] Interpret feedback: not write testthat-tests in examples
If the point of having, say, stopifnot(add(1, 2) == sum(c(1, 2)) is to make it explicit to the reader that your add() function gives the same results as sum(), then I argue that is valid to use in an example. I'm pretty sure I've used that in some of my examples. For the purpose, there should be no reason why you can't use other "assert" functions for this purpose, e.g. testthat::expect_equal(add(1, 2), sum(c(1, 2)) Now, if the point of your "assert" statement is only to validate your package/code, then I agree it should not be in the example code because it adds clutter. Such validation should be in a package test. So, if the former, I suggest you reply to the CRAN Team and explain this. /Henrik On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 6:28 AM Richel Bilderbeek
<richel at richelbilderbeek.nl> wrote:
Dear R package developers, I would enjoy some help regarding some feedback I got on my package from a CRAN volunteer, as I am unsure how to interpret this correctly. This is the feedback I got (I added '[do]'):
Please [do] not write testthat-tests in your examples.
I wonder if this is about using `testthat` or using tests in general. To simplify the context, say I wrote a package with a function called `add`, that adds two numbers. My example code would then be something like this: ``` library(testthat) expect_equal(add(1, 2), 3) ``` The first interpretation is about using `testthat`: maybe I should use base R (`stopifnot`) or another testing library (`testit`) or hand-craft it myself? The second interpretation is about using tests in example code. I like to actively demonstrate that my code works as expected. I checked the policies regarding examples, and I could not find a rule that I should refrain from doing so. What is the correct response to this feedback? Thanks for your guidance, Richel Bilderbeek
______________________________________________ R-package-devel at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel