Kurt Hornik wrote: >>>>>> Peter Dalgaard writes: > >> Petr Savicky wrote: >>> For the package at >>> http://www.cs.cas.cz/~savicky/R-devel/something_0.0.0.tar.gz >>> which is a minor part of some other package only to demonstrate the >>> problem, i get (under R version 2.11.0 Under development 2009-12-12 r50714 >>> and also under R-2.9.2, openSUSE 11.1 (x86_64) and CentOS release 5.2) >>> >>> R CMD check something_0.0.0.tar.gz >>> >>> ... >>> * checking Rd files ... OK >>> * checking Rd metadata ... OK >>> * checking Rd cross-references ... OK >>> * checking for missing documentation entries ... OK >>> * checking for code/documentation mismatches ... OK >>> * checking Rd \usage sections ... OK >>> * checking examples ... NONE >>> * checking PDF version of manual ... OK >>> >>> although the package code contains >>> >>> testCoreNA <- function() >>> >>> and the documentation contains >>> >>> \usage{ >>> testCoreClass(verbose=0) >>> testCoreAttrEval(verbose=0) >>> testCoreReg(verbose=0) >>> testCoreNA(verbose=0) >>> } >>> >>> There is a mismatch between code and documentation of testCoreNA(). Is the >>> problem caused by having four entries in \usage{} section? > >> Hmm, looks more like a thinko in this code inside codoc(): > >> functions_in_code <- Filter(function(f) { >> f <- get(f, envir = code_env) >> is.function(f) && (length(formals(f)) > 0L) >> }, objects_in_code) > >> which, further down the line, causes functions with no formal arguments >> to be skipped when compared to the usage section. > >> Browse[2]> >> debug: ind <- (!functions %in% functions_to_be_ignored & functions %in% >> functions_in_code) >> Browse[2]> functions >> [1] "testCoreClass" "testCoreAttrEval" "testCoreReg" >> "testCoreNA" >> Browse[2]> >> debug: bad_functions <- mapply(functions[ind], exprs[ind], FUN = >> function(x, >> y) check_codoc(x, as.pairlist(as.alist.call(y[-1L]))), SIMPLIFY = >> FALSE) >> Browse[2]> ind >> [1] TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE > >> I.e. testCoreNA is never tested by check_codoc. There may of course be >> a rationale for this, but it escapes me... > > Well, I am sure I had good reasons when I wrote the code many years ago, > but of course I no longer recall what they were. > > Did you try the effect of removing the length(formals(f)) test?
Not yet. Priorities.... -p -- O__ ---- Peter Dalgaard Øster Farimagsgade 5, Entr.B c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics PO Box 2099, 1014 Cph. K (*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen Denmark Ph: (+45) 35327918 ~~~~~~~~~~ - (p.dalga...@biostat.ku.dk) FAX: (+45) 35327907 ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
