Thanks for the explanation. Is it possible for R CMD check to distinguish between packages for which examples do or do not make sense, and raise a "Note" as appropriate?
I really don't mean to make a big issue out of this particular (soft) requirement--it was easy enough for you to spot and easy enough for me to fix. But, this is the third or fourth time over the last few years that I've submitted a package that passes R CMD check but have had to revise and resubmit due to a similar minor requirement. I rely on automation and tools, particularly R CMD check, to enforce requirements so that I don't have to remember all of the subtleties of "Writing R Extensions" and other policies. Yet, I now have a growing list of additional checks that I have to remember to go through before submitting, and it's easy to forget. If 'R CMD check --as-cran' passes and CRAN rejects, it seems that the tool is incomplete, and if it's feasible to improve it, we should. I'm happy to try to prepare a different patch that better encapsulates this particular policy. Neal On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Uwe Ligges <lig...@statistik.tu-dortmund.de> wrote: > There are packages where examples do not make sense, hence we do not > generally reject such packages. > > But if adding examples are reasonable we ask for them. > > Best, > Uwe Ligges > > > > > On 10.05.2017 17:28, Neal Richardson wrote: >> >> Hi, >> Last week I submitted a new package to CRAN, and it was rejected >> because there were no examples in any of the man pages. That's a >> reasonable requirement--I just didn't know it was one. When I looked >> back at the R CMD check results locally, I saw >> >> * checking examples ... NONE >> >> but the run still finished with >> >> Status: OK >> >> so I believed that my package was good. The package did have usage >> examples in the test suite and on the readme file, and it was no >> problem to copy the examples over to a man page and resubmit. But it >> seemed like an unfortunate and avoidable waste of the CRAN >> maintainers' time to have to ask for revisions and review again. >> >> I read the source and saw that the requirement around .Rd examples >> that R CMD check does enforce is only when there are no examples, no >> vignettes, and no tests >> >> (https://github.com/wch/r-source/blob/trunk/src/library/tools/R/check.R#L5100-L5117). >> The attached one-line patch makes the check for .Rd examples now log a >> "Note" rather than just print "NONE". Running it against my package >> without man-page examples, it shows >> >> * checking examples ... NOTE >> No examples >> >> and ends with >> >> Status: 1 NOTE >> >> which should be enough to remind package authors to address it before >> submitting to CRAN. >> >> Thanks for considering this patch. >> >> Neal >> >> P.S. Since this is an issue about CRAN policy and package development, >> I thought R-package-devel was the appropriate list to email, but >> please let me know if I should send the patch to R-devel instead. >> >> >> patch.diff >> >> >> Index: src/library/tools/R/check.R >> =================================================================== >> --- src/library/tools/R/check.R (revision 72665) >> +++ src/library/tools/R/check.R (working copy) >> @@ -2868,7 +2868,7 @@ >> " check also with --run-donttest\n") >> } >> } else { >> - resultLog(Log, "NONE") >> + noteLog(Log, "No examples") >> no_examples <<- TRUE >> } >> } >> >> >> >> ______________________________________________ >> R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel >> > ______________________________________________ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
