[R-pkg-devel] help understanding two NOTES during the automatic package checking

[Andy Stein]

Hi,

I am submitting my first ever R package to CRAN!  It's almost ready, but I
have two notes below and I do not understand the best way to fix them and I
was looking to get some feedback if anyone had time to help.  I paste the
notes at the end of this email.

   1. The first note seems to be some problem with the description file.
   But I can't understand from the note what the problem even is, can you
help
   me?
   2. The second note at the end is about the existence of some files.
   These files are all created by the example code in the documentation.  I
   suppose I could just mark all these examples as "do not run" and this
will
   fix the note, but from a code development perspective, I thought it would
   be preferable to run these examples during package building as an
   additional test of the package.  Is there any other solution that is
   preferred?  Briefly, the functions creating these examples are functions
   who have the job of producing graphical or tabular output files.  If you
   want to dig into the details, the example code is in the functions
   xgx_annotate_status_png()
   
and
   xgx_save_table()
   
in the xgxr
   package .

Best regards,
Andy

-- Forwarded message -
From: 
Date: Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 3:41 PM
Subject: [CRAN-pretest-archived] CRAN submission xgxr 1.0.0
To: 
Cc: 


Dear maintainer,

package xgxr_1.0.0.tar.gz does not pass the incoming checks automatically,
please see the following pre-tests:
Windows: <
https://win-builder.r-project.org/incoming_pretest/xgxr_1.0.0_20190805_212431/Windows/00check.log
>
Status: 1 NOTE
Debian: <
https://win-builder.r-project.org/incoming_pretest/xgxr_1.0.0_20190805_212431/Debian/00check.log
>
Status: 2 NOTEs



Please fix all problems and resubmit a fixed version via the webform.
If you are not sure how to fix the problems shown, please ask for help on
the R-package-devel mailing list:

If you are fairly certain the rejection is a false positive, please
reply-all to this message and explain.

More details are given in the directory:
<
https://win-builder.r-project.org/incoming_pretest/xgxr_1.0.0_20190805_212431/
>
The files will be removed after roughly 7 days.

No strong reverse dependencies to be checked.

Best regards,
CRAN teams' auto-check service
Flavor: r-devel-linux-x86_64-debian-gcc, r-devel-windows-ix86+x86_64
Check: CRAN incoming feasibility, Result: NOTE
  Maintainer: 'Andrew Stein '

  New submission

  License components with restrictions and base license permitting such:
MIT + file LICENSE
  File 'LICENSE':
MIT License

Copyright (c) 2019

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"),
to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the
rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or
sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included
in all
copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL
THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING
FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS
IN THE
SOFTWARE.

  Possibly mis-spelled words in DESCRIPTION:
PKPD (27:19, 35:25)
Pharmacometrics (2:33)
xgx (26:18, 31:54)

Flavor: r-devel-linux-x86_64-debian-gcc
Check: for non-standard things in the check directory, Result: NOTE
  Found the following files/directories:
'Task01_Example.png' 'Unnamed_Table.csv' 'png-example.png'
'png-example2.png' 'png-example3.png'

[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

__
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel

Re: [R-pkg-devel] help understanding two NOTES during the automatic package checking

[Iñaki Ucar]

On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 14:40, Andy Stein  wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am submitting my first ever R package to CRAN!  It's almost ready, but I
> have two notes below and I do not understand the best way to fix them and I
> was looking to get some feedback if anyone had time to help.  I paste the
> notes at the end of this email.
>
>1. The first note seems to be some problem with the description file.
>But I can't understand from the note what the problem even is, can you
> help
>me?

The MIT license file should contain only the following:

YEAR: 
COPYRIGHT HOLDER: 

as specified in https://www.r-project.org/Licenses/MIT.

>2. The second note at the end is about the existence of some files.
>These files are all created by the example code in the documentation.  I
>suppose I could just mark all these examples as "do not run" and this
> will
>fix the note, but from a code development perspective, I thought it would
>be preferable to run these examples during package building as an
>additional test of the package.  Is there any other solution that is
>preferred?

Your code is allowed to write files automatically only in the
temporary directory associated with the R session. To fix this, create
temporary files on top of your examples using tempfile() and write
there instead.

Iñaki

__
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel