[R-pkg-devel] Get an empty note for "checking DESCRIPTION meta-information" when I run devtools::build_win()
Barry,
sorry did not anticipate the behaving of the emailer. I could reproduce
your error with the DESCRIPTION file below with a helloworld pkg
Package: test
Type: Package
Title: What the Package Does (Title Case)
Version: 0.1.0
Authors at R: c(person("Roman", "Flury", email = "roman.flury at math.uzh.ch",
role = c("aut", "cre")),
???????????? person("Test", "person", email = "testmail at test.org", role
= c("fnd", "rth")))
Description: Short description to describe this package.
Depends: R (>= 3.5.0)
License: GPL-3
Encoding: UTF-8
LazyData: true
Imports: eha (>= 2.5.1),
??? ggplot2 (>= 2.2.1),
??? survival (>= 2.41-3),
??? reshape2 (>= 1.4.3),
??? stats (>= 3.5.0)
RoxygenNote: 6.0.1
this passes R CMD check --as-cran on a unix system, but not on windwos.
The problem seems to be the role "rth", which is also not listed in
?person. What does this role stand for?
best, Roman
On 25.07.2018 16:21, Eggleston, Barry wrote:
Roman, Not sure why my emailer added all those <mailto:aaa at bbb.ccc> items, but none of them are in my original DESCRIPTION file. So my Maintainer line, for example, simply reads Barry Eggleston <email address>, where email address is simply beggleston at rti.org. Thanks for the observation, Barry -----Original Message----- From: Roman Flury <roman.flury at math.uzh.ch> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2018 9:42 AM To: Eggleston, Barry <beggleston at rti.org> Cc: Hugh Parsonage <hugh.parsonage at gmail.com>; r-package-devel at r-project.org Subject: Re: [R-pkg-devel] Get an empty note for "checking DESCRIPTION meta-information" when I run devtools::build_win() Hello, after https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-release/R-exts.html the ?Maintainer? field should give a single name followed by a valid (RFC 2822) email address in angle brackets. but beggleston at rti.org<mailto:beggleston at rti.org> is not a valid RFC 2822 email address, you could check this for instance with https://proxy2.de/email-validation.php you could omit the 'Maintainer' field, since a suitable ?Authors at R? field is given.. does this solve your problem? best, Roman ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eggleston, Barry" <beggleston at rti.org> To: "Hugh Parsonage" <hugh.parsonage at gmail.com> Cc: r-package-devel at r-project.org Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2018 3:00:35 PM Subject: Re: [R-pkg-devel] Get an empty note for "checking DESCRIPTION meta-information" when I run devtools::build_win() Below is a copy of my DESCRIPTION file: Package: BayesCTDesign Type: Package Title: Two Arm Bayesian Clinical Trial Design with and Without Historical Control Data Version: 1.0.0 Authors at R: c( person("Barry", "Eggleston", email = "beggleston at rti.org<mailto:beggleston at rti.org>", role = c("cre", "aut")), person("Doug", "Wilson", email = "doug.roy.wilson at gmail.com<mailto:doug.roy.wilson at gmail.com>", role = c("aut")), person("Becky", "McNeil", email = "rmcneil at rti.org<mailto:rmcneil at rti.org>", role = c("aut")), person("Joseph", "Ibrahim", email = "jibrahim at email.unc.edu<mailto:jibrahim at email.unc.edu>", role = c("aut")), person("Diane", "Catellier", email = "dcatellier at rti.org<mailto:dcatellier at rti.org>", role = c("fnd", "rth"))) Maintainer: Barry Eggleston <beggleston at rti.org<mailto:beggleston at rti.org>> Description: A set of functions to help clinical trial researchers calculate power and sample size for two-arm Bayesian randomized clinical trials that do or do not incorporate historical control data. At some point during the design process, a clinical trial researcher who is designing a basic two-arm Bayesian randomized clinical trial needs to make decisions about power and sample size within the context of hypothesized treatment effects. Through simulation, the \code{simple_sim()} function will estimate power and other user specified clinical trial characteristics at user specified sample sizes given user defined scenarios about treatment effect,control group characteristics, and outcome. If the clinical trial researcher has access to historical control data, then the researcher can design a two-arm Bayesian randomized clinical trial that incorporates the historical data. In such a case, the researcher needs to work through the potential consequences of historical and randomiz ed control differences on trial characteristics, in addition to working through issues regarding power in the context of sample size, treatment effect size, and outcome. If a researcher designs a clinical trial that will incorporate historical control data, the researcher needs the randomized controls to be from the same population as the historical controls. What if this is not the case when the designed trial is implemented? During the design phase, the researcher needs to investigate the negative effects of possible historic/randomized control differences on power, type one error, and other trial characteristics. Using this information, the researcher should design the trial to mitigate these negative effects. Through simulation, the \code{historic_sim()} function will estimate power and other user specified clinical trial characteristics at user specified sample sizes given user defined scenarios about historical and randomized control differences as well as treatment effec ts and outcomes. The results from \code{historic_sim()} and \code{simple_sim()} can be printed with \code{print_table()} and graphed with \code{plot_table()} methods. Outcomes considered are Gaussian, Poisson, Bernoulli, Lognormal, Weibull, and Piecewise Exponential. Depends: R (>= 3.5.0) License: GPL-3 Encoding: UTF-8 LazyData: true Imports: eha (>= 2.5.1), ggplot2 (>= 2.2.1), survival (>= 2.41-3), reshape2 (>= 1.4.3), stats (>= 3.5.0) RoxygenNote: 6.0.1 From: Hugh Parsonage <hugh.parsonage at gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 10:12 PM To: Eggleston, Barry <beggleston at rti.org> Cc: r-package-devel at r-project.org Subject: Re: [R-pkg-devel] Get an empty note for "checking DESCRIPTION meta-information" when I run devtools::build_win() Thank you. Could you provide the contents of DESCRIPTION too? That might provide the richest clue. If you have a link to an online copy of the package that could be helpful too. On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 at 12:01 Eggleston, Barry <beggleston at rti.org<mailto:beggleston at rti.org>> wrote: I am working through my first package submission. When I checked my package using devtools::build_win(), I got no errors and two notes. One note is simply the expected note that my package is a new submission. My second note involves DESCRIPTION meta-information, but nothing is printed so I don't know what to focus on. I have copied the important parts of my 00check.log from CRAN below for context. What areas of my DESCRIPTION file might create such an empty note? Thanks in advance for any help you might give me. * checking CRAN incoming feasibility ... NOTE Maintainer: 'Barry Eggleston <beggleston at rti.org<mailto:beggleston at rti.org><mailto:beggleston at rti.org<mailto:beggleston at rti.org>>>' New submission * checking package namespace information ... OK * checking package dependencies ... OK * checking if this is a source package ... OK * checking if there is a namespace ... OK * checking for hidden files and directories ... OK * checking for portable file names ... OK * checking whether package 'BayesCTDesign' can be installed ... OK * checking installed package size ... OK * checking package directory ... OK * checking DESCRIPTION meta-information ... NOTE * checking top-level files ... OK * checking for left-over files ... OK * checking index information ... OK * checking package subdirectories ... OK * checking R files for non-ASCII characters ... OK * checking R files for syntax errors ... OK * loading checks for arch 'i386' ** checking whether the package can be loaded ... OK ** checking whether the package can be loaded with stated dependencies ... OK ** checking whether the package can be unloaded cleanly ... OK ** checking whether the namespace can be loaded with stated dependencies ... OK ** checking whether the namespace can be unloaded cleanly ... OK ** checking loading without being on the library search path ... OK ** checking use of S3 registration ... OK * loading checks for arch 'x64' ** checking whether the package can be loaded ... OK ** checking whether the package can be loaded with stated dependencies ... OK ** checking whether the package can be unloaded cleanly ... OK ** checking whether the namespace can be loaded with stated dependencies ... OK ** checking whether the namespace can be unloaded cleanly ... OK ** checking loading without being on the library search path ... OK ** checking use of S3 registration ... OK * checking dependencies in R code ... OK * checking S3 generic/method consistency ... OK * checking replacement functions ... OK * checking foreign function calls ... OK * checking R code for possible problems ... [41s] OK * checking Rd files ... OK * checking Rd metadata ... OK * checking Rd line widths ... OK * checking Rd cross-references ... OK * checking for missing documentation entries ... OK * checking for code/documentation mismatches ... OK * checking Rd \usage sections ... OK * checking Rd contents ... OK * checking for unstated dependencies in examples ... OK * checking examples ... ** running examples for arch 'i386' ... [19s] OK ** running examples for arch 'x64' ... [22s] OK * checking PDF version of manual ... OK * DONE Status: 2 NOTEs Barry [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________ R-package-devel at r-project.org<mailto:R-package-devel at r-project.org> mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel [[alternative HTML version deleted]] ______________________________________________ R-package-devel at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel