[R-pkg-devel] Help on Windows CRAN Check

I see this error on the CRAN Check report

### ** Examples

#Definitive Screening Design
library(daewr)
set.seed(1234)
x <- DefScreen(m=5,c=0)
colnames(x) <- paste("x",1:5,sep="")
x$y <- 3*x$x1 + 2*x$x2 + 2*x$x4*x$x5 + x$x3^2 + 2*x$x1^2 + rnorm(nrow(x),0,1)
(z <- HierAFS(x$y,x[,-6],m=5,c=0,step=4,nm1=FALSE ))

  ----------- FAILURE REPORT --------------
  --- failure: the condition has length > 1 ---
  --- srcref ---
:
  --- package (from environment) ---
daewr
  --- call from context ---
ihstep(y, x, m, c)
  --- call from argument ---
if (t1 == "I" & t2 == "(") {
     iquad = TRUE
}
  --- R stacktrace ---
where 1: ihstep(y, x, m, c)
where 2: eval(expr, pf)
where 3: eval(expr, pf)
where 4: withVisible(eval(expr, pf))
where 5: evalVis(expr)
where 6: capture.output(res <- ihstep(y, x, m, c))
where 7: withCallingHandlers(expr, warning = function(w)
invokeRestart("muffleWarning"))
where 8: suppressWarnings(invisible(capture.output(res <- ihstep(y, x,
     m, c))))
where 9: HierAFS(x$y, x[, -6], m = 5, c = 0, step = 4, nm1 = FALSE)

  --- value of length: 3 type: logical ---
[1] FALSE FALSE FALSE
  --- function from context ---
function (y, des, m, c)
{
     lin <- colnames(des)
     values <- c("A", "B", "C", "D", "E", "F", "G", "H", "I",
         "J", "K", "L", "M", "N", "O", "P", "Q", "R", "S", "T",
         "U", "V", "W", "X", "Y", "Z")
     repl <- c("I(A^2)", "I(B^2)", "I(C^2)", "I(D^2)", "I(E^2)",
         "I(F^2)", "I(G^2)", "I(H^2)", "I(I^2)", "I(J^2)", "I(K^2)",
         "I(L^2)", "I(M^2)", "I(N^2)", "I(O^2)", "I(P^2)", "I(Q^2)",
         "I(R^2)", "I(S^2)", "I(T^2)", "I(U^2)", "I(V^2)", "I(W^2)",
         "I(X^2)", "I(Y^2)", "I(Z^2)")
     repl.tab <- cbind(values, repl)
     if (m == 0) {
         quad <- character()
     }
     else {
         indx <- rep(0, m)
         for (i in 1:m) {
             indx[i] <- match(lin[i], repl.tab[, 1], nomatch = 0)
         }
         quad <- rep("A", m)
         for (i in 1:m) {
             quad[i] <- lin[i]
         }
         quad[indx != 0] <- repl.tab[indx, 2]
         quad <- paste(quad, collapse = "+")
     }
     dat <- data.frame(y = y, des)
     lm1 <- lm(y ~ (.)^2, data = dat)
     mm <- model.matrix(lm1)
     fact <- colnames(mm)
     fact <- fact[-1]
     fact <- paste(fact, collapse = "+")
     mod <- paste(c(fact, quad), collapse = "+")
     lm2 <- lm(reformulate(termlabels = mod, response = "y"),
         data = dat)
     mm <- model.matrix(lm2)
     mm <- mm[, 2:ncol(mm)]
     trm <- firstm(y, mm)
     d1 <- data.frame(y = y, mm[, trm])
     t1 <- substr(trm, 1, 1)
     t2 <- substr(trm, 2, 2)
     t3 <- substr(trm, 3, 3)
     iquad = FALSE
     if (t1 == "I" & t2 == "(") {
         iquad = TRUE
     }
     hmt <- trm
     if (t2 == "") {
         nms <- names(d1)
         nms[2] <- hmt
         names(d1) <- nms
     }
     m1 <- lm(y ~ (.), data = d1)
     result <- summary(m1)
     print(result)
     return(trm)
}
<bytecode: 0x088fe000>
<environment: namespace:daewr>
  --- function search by body ---
Function ihstep in namespace daewr has this body.
  ----------- END OF FAILURE REPORT --------------
Fatal error: the condition has length > 1

However on my own computer or on Rforge

I see this:

* checking examples ... OK
* DONE

Status: OK

-- R CMD check results ---------------------------------------- daewr 1.1-9 ----
Duration: 1m 1.8s

0 errors v | 0 warnings v | 0 notes v

R CMD check succeeded


I am not sure what the error is or how to correct it. Any help would
be greatly appreciated,

John Lawson

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

On 3/5/20 4:26 AM, John Lawson wrote:

I see this error on the CRAN Check report

Fatal error: the condition has length > 1

The problem is that the condition t1 == "I" & t2 == "(" of the if
statement in the code is not a scalar. Even though this has been allowed
in R historically, the first element has been used, it is almost always
a sign of coding error, so it is going to become a runtime error.

So what one should do is fix the code to only use scalar conditions -
ensure t1, t2 are scalar, replace & by &&.

   flag <- !is.null(x) && x > 0

On 3/5/20 4:26 AM, John Lawson wrote:

I see this error on the CRAN Check report

Fatal error: the condition has length > 1

The problem is that the condition t1 == "I" & t2 == "(" of the if 
statement in the code is not a scalar. Even though this has been 
allowed in R historically, the first element has been used, it is 
almost always a sign of coding error, so it is going to become a runtime error.

So what one should do is fix the code to only use scalar conditions - 
ensure t1, t2 are scalar, replace & by &&.

On 5/03/20 9:04 pm, Tomas Kalibera wrote:

On 3/5/20 4:26 AM, John Lawson wrote:

I see this error on the CRAN Check report

<SNIP>

Fatal error: the condition has length > 1

The problem is that the condition t1 == "I" & t2 == "(" of the if
statement in the code is not a scalar. Even though this has been allowed
in R historically, the first element has been used, it is almost always
a sign of coding error, so it is going to become a runtime error.

So what one should do is fix the code to only use scalar conditions -
ensure t1, t2 are scalar, replace & by &&.

Perhaps I'm being even thicker than usual (imagine that!) but I don't 
grok that last recommendation:? "replace & by &&".? It's usually 
harmless but indicates a lack of understanding.? The "&&" operator 
evaluates the second condition only if the first condition is TRUE.? 
It is useful (only) in setting where the second condition is 
meaningful only when the first condition is TRUE.

Things like:

?? if(!is.null(x) && x > 0)

If "x" were null then the second? condition would cause an error to be 
thrown if you used "&" rather than "&&".

In all (???) situations where "&&" works, then "&" works as well. 
However it's a Good Idea to use the language as intended.

It I'm missing some point here, please enlighten me.

<SNIP>

cheers,

Rolf

On 5/03/20 9:04 pm, Tomas Kalibera wrote:

On 3/5/20 4:26 AM, John Lawson wrote:

I see this error on the CRAN Check report

<SNIP>

Fatal error: the condition has length > 1

The problem is that the condition t1 == "I" & t2 == "(" of the if
statement in the code is not a scalar. Even though this has been allowed
in R historically, the first element has been used, it is almost always
a sign of coding error, so it is going to become a runtime error.

So what one should do is fix the code to only use scalar conditions -
ensure t1, t2 are scalar, replace & by &&.

Perhaps I'm being even thicker than usual (imagine that!) 

but I don't 
grok that last recommendation:? "replace & by &&".? It's usually 
harmless but indicates a lack of understanding.? The "&&" operator 
evaluates the second condition only if the first condition is TRUE.? It 

is useful (only) in setting where the second condition is meaningful 
only when the first condition is TRUE.

Things like:

 ?? if(!is.null(x) && x > 0)

If "x" were null then the second? condition would cause an error to be 
thrown if you used "&" rather than "&&".

In all (???) situations where "&&" works, then "&" works as well. 
However it's a Good Idea to use the language as intended.

It I'm missing some point here, please enlighten me.

<SNIP>

cheers,

Rolf

On 05.03.2020 09:45, Rolf Turner wrote:

On 5/03/20 9:04 pm, Tomas Kalibera wrote:

On 3/5/20 4:26 AM, John Lawson wrote:

I see this error on the CRAN Check report

<SNIP>

Fatal error: the condition has length > 1

The problem is that the condition t1 == "I" & t2 == "(" of the if
statement in the code is not a scalar. Even though this has been allowed
in R historically, the first element has been used, it is almost always
a sign of coding error, so it is going to become a runtime error.

So what one should do is fix the code to only use scalar conditions -
ensure t1, t2 are scalar, replace & by &&.

Perhaps I'm being even thicker than usual (imagine that!)

Oh dear, but this time it is true...:

but I don't
grok that last recommendation:  "replace & by &&".  It's usually
harmless but indicates a lack of understanding.  The "&&" operator
evaluates the second condition only if the first condition is TRUE.  It

Right, and as the conditions are scalar, we never have to evaluate the
2nd if the first is FALSE unless you do it for side effects.

So for logical operators on scalar logical vectors, one should prefer &&
and || for efficeincy reasons.

Best,
Uwe

is useful (only) in setting where the second condition is meaningful
only when the first condition is TRUE.

Things like:

    if(!is.null(x) && x > 0)

If "x" were null then the second  condition would cause an error to be
thrown if you used "&" rather than "&&".

In all (???) situations where "&&" works, then "&" works as well.
However it's a Good Idea to use the language as intended.

It I'm missing some point here, please enlighten me.

<SNIP>

cheers,

Rolf

On 5 Mar 2020, at 15:44 , Jeff Jetton <jeff.jetton at gmail.com> wrote:

This is something that, by the way, I've always thought R got backwards. If
you want an operation to handle "one thing" against "one other thing"
(scalars), a single & or | seems like the obvious symbol for it. Whereas an
operation on "multiple things" (vectors) would be well-represented by a
multiple-character symbol like && or ||.

But as long as I remember that it's backwards, I can keep them sorted out.
:-)

- Jeff

On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 6:14 AM Uwe Ligges <ligges at statistik.tu-dortmund.de>
wrote:

On 05.03.2020 09:45, Rolf Turner wrote:

On 5/03/20 9:04 pm, Tomas Kalibera wrote:

On 3/5/20 4:26 AM, John Lawson wrote:

I see this error on the CRAN Check report

<SNIP>

Fatal error: the condition has length > 1

The problem is that the condition t1 == "I" & t2 == "(" of the if
statement in the code is not a scalar. Even though this has been allowed
in R historically, the first element has been used, it is almost always
a sign of coding error, so it is going to become a runtime error.

So what one should do is fix the code to only use scalar conditions -
ensure t1, t2 are scalar, replace & by &&.

Perhaps I'm being even thicker than usual (imagine that!)

Oh dear, but this time it is true...:

but I don't
grok that last recommendation:  "replace & by &&".  It's usually
harmless but indicates a lack of understanding.  The "&&" operator
evaluates the second condition only if the first condition is TRUE.  It

Right, and as the conditions are scalar, we never have to evaluate the
2nd if the first is FALSE unless you do it for side effects.

So for logical operators on scalar logical vectors, one should prefer &&
and || for efficeincy reasons.

Best,
Uwe

is useful (only) in setting where the second condition is meaningful
only when the first condition is TRUE.

Things like:

   if(!is.null(x) && x > 0)

If "x" were null then the second  condition would cause an error to be
thrown if you used "&" rather than "&&".

In all (???) situations where "&&" works, then "&" works as well.
However it's a Good Idea to use the language as intended.

It I'm missing some point here, please enlighten me.

<SNIP>

cheers,

Rolf

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]