[R-pkg-devel] Checks on wrong package?
Package submission is failing based on RadData 1.0.0, not present submission, 1.0.1. This submission is to correct a data compression issue identified by email from Prof Brian Ripley. The warnings are all about what I'm trying to fix. It doesn't seem possible for a fix on my end. Please advise. Thanks, Mark Hogue [[alternative HTML version deleted]] __ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
[R-pkg-devel] Whack-a-mole base::assign(".ptime", proc.time(), pos = "CheckExEnv")
(The subject title is in reference to the arcade game where fake mole heads
pop up and the contestant is challenged to smash them down as more and more
keep popping up.)
I made some changes to a package and when I run the R CMD check, I get one
error with this lead-in notification:
Running examples in 'radsafer-Ex.R' failed
The error most likely occurred in:
*base::assign(".ptime", proc.time(), pos = "CheckExEnv")*
When I do something with the affected function, I get a similar error on
another function.
Could it have something to do with my having added argument checks on these
functions? Could someone advise where to go to understand this error
better? And is it normal to get only one error at a time like this?
Thanks,
Mark
[[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] Whack-a-mole base::assign(".ptime", proc.time(), pos = "CheckExEnv")
Thank you very much Peter. Your advice helped me find the error. I had not
previously known where to find the package's -Ex.R file, and I didn't even
realize that this was a timeout error. (The -Ex.R file was in my working
directory, not the package directory.) One function did have some long
examples, but that function was never mentioned in the error, so it was
very confusing.
Cheers,
Mark
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 4:44 AM peter dalgaard wrote:
> That line is a generic part of the timing (it records current time so that
> at the end you can do what amounts to "Time used:" proc.time() - .ptime).
>
> It is not likely to contain the actual error -- notice that the message
> just gives you a best guess of the error location and that may fail. You
> probably need to have a look at the actual radsafer-Ex.R file and its
> output to find the true culprit.
>
> If you have catastrophic failures, yes, you see them only one at a time.
>
> -pd
>
> > On 30 Apr 2019, at 03:16 , Mark Hogue wrote:
> >
> > (The subject title is in reference to the arcade game where fake mole
> heads
> > pop up and the contestant is challenged to smash them down as more and
> more
> > keep popping up.)
> >
> > I made some changes to a package and when I run the R CMD check, I get
> one
> > error with this lead-in notification:
> >
> > Running examples in 'radsafer-Ex.R' failed
> > The error most likely occurred in:
> > *base::assign(".ptime", proc.time(), pos = "CheckExEnv")*
> >
> > When I do something with the affected function, I get a similar error on
> > another function.
> >
> > Could it have something to do with my having added argument checks on
> these
> > functions? Could someone advise where to go to understand this error
> > better? And is it normal to get only one error at a time like this?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
> >
> > __
> > R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
> > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
>
> --
> Peter Dalgaard, Professor,
> Center for Statistics, Copenhagen Business School
> Solbjerg Plads 3, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark
> Phone: (+45)38153501
> Office: A 4.23
> Email: pd@cbs.dk Priv: pda...@gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
__
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
[R-pkg-devel] Fwd: CRAN submission radsafer 2.1.0
This package is ready to submit, except I am concerned about one thing. The package version listed on the check result page is 2.0.1, whereas this version is 2.1.0. Should I go ahead and submit it, or is there some problem I need to fix? -- Forwarded message - From: Package Submission Date: Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 5:55 PM Subject: CRAN submission radsafer 2.1.0 To: Mark Hogue Dear Mark Hogue Someone has submitted the package radsafer to CRAN. You are receiving this email to confirm the submission as the maintainer of this package. To confirm the submission to CRAN, follow or copy & paste the following link into your browser: https://xmpalantir.wu.ac.at/cransubmit/conf_mail.php?code=c9a3cccd75150cf5bf6235645d8bee6b If you did not submit the package or do not wish for it to be submitted to CRAN, simply ignore this email Submission Information: Submitter: Mark Hogue Package: radsafer Version: 2.1.0 Title: Radiation Safety Author(s): Mark Hogue Maintainer: Mark Hogue Depends: R (>= 3.5.0) Suggests: testthat, scatterplot3d, beepr, knitr, rmarkdown Description: Provides functions for radiation safety, also known as "radiation protection" and "radiological control". The science of radiation protection is called "health physics" and its engineering functions are called "radiological engineering". Functions in this package cover many of the computations needed by radiation safety professionals. Examples include: obtaining updated calibration and source check values for radiation monitors to account for radioactive decay in a reference source, simulating instrument readings to better understand measurement uncertainty, correcting instrument readings for geometry and ambient atmospheric conditions. Many of these functions are described in Johnson and Kirby (2011, ISBN-13: 978-1609134198). Utilities are also included for developing inputs and processing outputs with radiation transport codes, such as MCNP, a general-purpose Monte Carlo N-Particle code that can be used for neutron, photon, electron, or coupled neutron/photon/electron transport (Werner et. al. (2018) ). License: GPL-3 Imports: ggplot2, readr, stats, graphics, RadData, stringr, magrittr, dplyr, rlang Submitter's comment: ## Test environments * local Windows 10 home version 1809, R 3.6.2 * ubuntu 16.04 and Fedora Linux (on R-hub builder), R 3.6.2 ## R CMD check results There were no ERRORs or WARNINGs. There was one NOTE, referring to non-standard files in the check directory. These are output files resulting from functions that provide text files to the user's working or specified other directory. [[alternative HTML version deleted]] __ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
