[Rd] Running package tests and not stop on first fail

Martin Maechler maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch
Fri Nov 4 16:53:54 CET 2016

>>>>> Brian G Peterson <brian at braverock.com>
>>>>>     on Fri, 4 Nov 2016 10:37:18 -0500 writes:

    > On Fri, 2016-11-04 at 16:24 +0100, Martin Maechler wrote:
    >> >>>>> Jan Gorecki <J.Gorecki at wit.edu.pl> >>>>> on Fri, 4
    >> Nov 2016 11:20:37 +0000 writes:
    >> > Martin, I submitted very simple patch on >
    >> https://bugs.r-project.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17176
    >> > Herve, While I like your idea, I prefer to keep my
    >> patch > simple, it is now exactly what Martin mentions. I
    >> think it > is a good start that can eventually be
    >> extended later for > what you are asking.
    >> I tend to agree; this seems indeed much easier than I
    >> anticipated.  Thank you, Jan!
    >> I'm testing a version which uses the logical variable
    >> 'stop_on_error' rather than 'no_stop_on_error' (because
    >> !no_stop_on_error is hard to mentally parse quickly).
    >> My proposed name '--no-stop-on-error' was a quick shot;
    >> if somebody has a more concise or better "English style"
    >> wording (which is somewhat compatible with all the other
    >> options you see from 'R CMD check --help'), please speak
    >> up.

    > I might suggest

    > --stop-tests-on-error

    > with default=TRUE to match current functionality.

Thank you, Brian.

though that would be less concise and I think less matching the
'R CMD check' philosophy with many '--no-*' options to turn
*off* defaults. Note that most options have no " = <value>" part, because
they are binary and I think that's easiest for use (when the 'binary' case 
is general enough). Also   R CMD check --help      
ends saying  "By default, all test sections are turned on."
which does fit the use of all those '--no-*' options.

OTOH, we also have  '--ignore-vignettes'
so we could consider



    > This might avoid any confusion related to the behavior of
    > continuing to run examples on error in R CMD check.

You are quite right on that, indeed.

    > Regards,
    > Brian

More information about the R-devel mailing list