[Rd] Running package tests and not stop on first fail
J.Gorecki at wit.edu.pl
Wed Nov 9 06:54:18 CET 2016
Sorry for late reply. I like the stop-on-error.
Thanks for merging.
Glad to be R contributor!
On 4 November 2016 at 09:42, Oliver Keyes <ironholds at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, 4 November 2016, Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch>
>> >>>>> Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd at debian.org>
>> >>>>> on Fri, 4 Nov 2016 10:36:52 -0500 writes:
>> > On 4 November 2016 at 16:24, Martin Maechler wrote: | 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.
>> > Why not keep it simple? The similar feature this most
>> > resembles is 'make -k' and its help page has
>> > -k, --keep-going
>> > Continue as much as possible after an
>> > error. While the target that failed, and those that
>> > depend on it, cannot be remade, the other dependencies of
>> > these targets can be processed all the same.
>> Yes, that would be quite a bit simpler and nice in my view.
>> One may think it to be too vague,
> Mmn, I would agree on vagueness (and it breaks the pattern set by other
> flags of human-readability). Deep familiarity with make is probably not
> something we should ask of everyone who needs to test a package, too.
> I quite like stop-on-error=true (exactly the same as the previous suggestion
> but shaves off some characters by inverting the Boolean)
>> notably from Brian Pedersen's mentioning that the examples are
>> already continued in any case if they lead to an error.
>> Other opinions?
>> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
More information about the R-devel