[Rd] typeof(getOption("warn")) is "integer" instead of "double" in R unstable (2019-09-27 r77229)? Reproducible?
murdoch@dunc@n @end|ng |rom gm@||@com
Sun Sep 29 20:46:49 CEST 2019
On 29/09/2019 12:12 p.m., nospam using altfeld-im.de wrote:
> Thanks a lot for pointing out the reason
> (and yes, I am testing quite to stringent in this case - it's my old testing disease ;-)
> For other readers:
> The R-devel NEWS is a good source to find possible change reasons:
And if you want to follow along, you can get it as an RSS feed from
<http://developer.r-project.org/RSSfeeds.html>. If you don't know what
an RSS feed is, see feedly.com.
> On Sun, 2019-09-29 at 08:33 -0400, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>> On 29/09/2019 7:55 a.m., nospam using altfeld-im.de wrote:
>>> I have a failing unit test in my package tryCatchLog on the CRAN build infrastructure
>>> with "R Under development (unstable) (2019-09-27 r77229)"
>>> and the unit tests just ensures consistent behaviour of R (not of my package) as a precondition:
>>> The failing unit test is caused by
>>>>  "integer"
>>> but it should be
>>>>  "double"
>> This is related to this bug fix:
>> CHANGES IN R 3.6.1 patched BUG FIXES
>> ‘options(warn=1e11)’ is an error now, instead of later leading to C
>> stack overflow because of infinite recursion.
>> which occurred in rev 77226. It explicitly coerces the warn value to
>>> I have no build infrastructure for dev and want to find out if this is caused by
>>> - my mistake
>>> - changes in the R dev version
>>> - the new C compilers used (correlates with the failing unit test)
>> It is changes in the dev and patched versions, and also your mistake:
>> your test shouldn't be so stringent. The docs don't say that the value
>> has to be a double; in fact, they suggest it should be a whole number
>> value (talking about 0, 1, "2 or more", not about what would happen with
>> options(warn = pi/2), for example.
>> In older versions, options(warn = pi/2) is treated the same as
>> options(warn = 1), and in the new version, it is displayed as 1 as well.
>> Duncan Murdoch
>>> Can somebody (having the R dev version available) please help me and answer the result of
>>> using "R Under development (unstable) (2019-09-27 r77229)" or newer?
>>> Thanks a lot and sorry for the "noise"!
>>> PS: These R (dev) versions did work as expected (returning "double") but were also using older C compilers:
>>> - R Under development (unstable) (2019-09-20 r77199)
>>> - R Under development (unstable) (2019-09-22 r77202)
>>> - R Under development (unstable) (2019-09-25 r77217)
>>> - R version 3.6.1 Patched (2019-09-25 r77224)
>>> - R version 3.6.1 (2019-07-05)
>>> - R version 3.6.0 beta (2019-04-15 r76395)
>>> - R version 3.5.3 (2019-03-11)
>>> - R version 3.5.2 (2018-12-20)
>>> R-devel using r-project.org mailing list
More information about the R-devel