OK,
I submitted the package via the webform with "rth" as a role for Diane. It
failed the automatic testing for two notes and was archived within a few
minutes. One note indicated the package was a new submission, while the other
was related to my use of "rth". I responded to all and referred to this
discussion on R-package-devel. The actual notes received were:
Flavor: r-devel-linux-x86_64-debian-gcc, r-devel-windows-ix86+x86_64
Check: CRAN incoming feasibility, Result: NOTE
Maintainer: 'Barry Eggleston <beggles...@rti.org>'
New submission
Flavor: r-devel-linux-x86_64-debian-gcc, r-devel-windows-ix86+x86_64
Check: DESCRIPTION meta-information, Result: NOTE
Thanks,
Barry
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Maechler <maech...@stat.math.ethz.ch>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2018 11:40 AM
To: Eggleston, Barry <beggles...@rti.org>
Cc: Roman Flury <roman.fl...@math.uzh.ch>; r-package-devel@r-project.org
Subject: Re: [R-pkg-devel] Get an empty note for "checking DESCRIPTION
meta-information" when I run devtools::build_win()
>>>>> Eggleston, Barry
>>>>> on Wed, 25 Jul 2018 21:53:30 +0000 writes:
> This is great news Roman.
> The "rth" role stands for "Research team head", and I got it from the
http://www.loc.gov/marc//relators/relaterm.html website.
and it *IS* a correct role also in R, using non-API function
(non-API: do *not* use it in reproducible code, pkgs, etc !) :
> utils:::.canonicalize_person_role("rth")
[1] "rth"
tells us that this is a correct role,
whereas these are not :
> utils:::.canonicalize_person_role("Rth")
character(0)
Warning message:
In utils:::.canonicalize_person_role("Rth") :
Invalid role specification: ‘Rth’.
> utils:::.canonicalize_person_role("Foobar")
character(0)
Warning message:
In utils:::.canonicalize_person_role("Foobar") :
Invalid role specification: ‘Foobar’.
>
So the bug is really in the Windows version of R that was
running for you when you've used devtools::build_win() or in
build_win() itself.
"rth" is a correct role and you should *NOT* replace it by something less
appropriate ...
Martin Maechler
ETH Zurich and R Core Team
> This issue here is Diane Catellier provided the funds and management for
us to develop this package. I did not know about the person() function. When
I looked at the help page for person(), I see that I can use "fnd" for funder
and that will define Diane's role sufficiently well. I'll make the change and
run through my checks again.
> Thank you,
> Barry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roman Flury <roman.fl...@math.uzh.ch>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2018 5:27 PM
> To: Eggleston, Barry <beggles...@rti.org>
> Cc: Hugh Parsonage <hugh.parson...@gmail.com>;
r-package-devel@r-project.org
> Subject: Re: [R-pkg-devel] Get an empty note for "checking DESCRIPTION
meta-information" when I run devtools::build_win()
> Barry,
> sorry did not anticipate the behaving of the emailer. I could reproduce
your error with the DESCRIPTION file below with a helloworld pkg
> Package: test
> Type: Package
> Title: What the Package Does (Title Case)
> Version: 0.1.0
> Authors@R: c(person("Roman", "Flury", email = "roman.fl...@math.uzh.ch",
role = c("aut", "cre")),
> person("Test", "person", email = "testm...@test.org", role =
c("fnd", "rth")))
> Description: Short description to describe this package.
> Depends: R (>= 3.5.0)
> License: GPL-3
> Encoding: UTF-8
> LazyData: true
> Imports: eha (>= 2.5.1),
> ggplot2 (>= 2.2.1),
> survival (>= 2.41-3),
> reshape2 (>= 1.4.3),
> stats (>= 3.5.0)
> RoxygenNote: 6.0.1
> this passes R CMD check --as-cran on a unix system, but not on windwos.
> The problem seems to be the role "rth", which is also not listed in
?person. What does this role stand for?
> best, Roman
> On 25.07.2018 16:21, Eggleston, Barry wrote:
>> Roman,
>>
>> Not sure why my emailer added all those <mailto:a...@bbb.ccc> items, but
none of them are in my original DESCRIPTION file. So my Maintainer line, for
example, simply reads Barry Eggleston <email address>, where email address is
simply beggles...@rti.org.
>>
>> Thanks for the observation,
>> Barry
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Roman Flury <roman.fl...@math.uzh.ch>
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2018 9:42 AM
>> To: Eggleston, Barry <beggles...@rti.org>
>> Cc: Hugh Parsonage <hugh.parson...@gmail.com>;
>> r-package-devel@r-project.org
>> Subject: Re: [R-pkg-devel] Get an empty note for "checking DESCRIPTION
>> meta-information" when I run devtools::build_win()
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> after https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-release/R-exts.html the
‘Maintainer’ field should give a single name followed by a valid (RFC 2822)
email address in angle brackets.
>> but beggles...@rti.org<mailto:beggles...@rti.org> is not a valid RFC
>> 2822 email address, you could check this for instance with
>> https://proxy2.de/email-validation.php
>>
>> you could omit the 'Maintainer' field, since a suitable ‘Authors@R’
field is given..
>> does this solve your problem?
>>
>> best, Roman
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Eggleston, Barry" <beggles...@rti.org>
>> To: "Hugh Parsonage" <hugh.parson...@gmail.com>
>> Cc: r-package-devel@r-project.org
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2018 3:00:35 PM
>> Subject: Re: [R-pkg-devel] Get an empty note for "checking DESCRIPTION
>> meta-information" when I run devtools::build_win()
>>
>> Below is a copy of my DESCRIPTION file:
>>
>> Package: BayesCTDesign
>> Type: Package
>> Title: Two Arm Bayesian Clinical Trial Design with and Without
>> Historical Control Data
>> Version: 1.0.0
>> Authors@R: c(
>> person("Barry", "Eggleston", email =
"beggles...@rti.org<mailto:beggles...@rti.org>", role = c("cre", "aut")),
>> person("Doug", "Wilson", email =
"doug.roy.wil...@gmail.com<mailto:doug.roy.wil...@gmail.com>", role = c("aut")),
>> person("Becky", "McNeil", email =
"rmcn...@rti.org<mailto:rmcn...@rti.org>", role = c("aut")),
>> person("Joseph", "Ibrahim", email =
"jibra...@email.unc.edu<mailto:jibra...@email.unc.edu>", role = c("aut")),
>> person("Diane", "Catellier", email =
>> "dcatell...@rti.org<mailto:dcatell...@rti.org>", role = c("fnd",
>> "rth")))
>> Maintainer: Barry Eggleston
>> <beggles...@rti.org<mailto:beggles...@rti.org>>
>> Description: A set of functions to help clinical trial researchers
calculate power and sample size for two-arm Bayesian randomized clinical trials
that do or do not incorporate historical control data. At some point during
the design process, a clinical trial researcher who is designing a basic
two-arm Bayesian randomized clinical trial needs to make decisions about power
and sample size within the context of hypothesized treatment effects. Through
simulation, the \code{simple_sim()} function will estimate power and other user
specified clinical trial characteristics at user specified sample sizes given
user defined scenarios about treatment effect,control group characteristics,
and outcome. If the clinical trial researcher has access to historical control
data, then the researcher can design a two-arm Bayesian randomized clinical
trial that incorporates the historical data. In such a case, the researcher
needs to work through the potential consequences of historical and randomiz ed
control differences on trial characteristics, in addition to working through
issues regarding power in the context of sample size, treatment effect size,
and outcome. If a researcher designs a clinical trial that will incorporate
historical control data, the researcher needs the randomized controls to be
from the same population as the historical controls. What if this is not the
case when the designed trial is implemented? During the design phase, the
researcher needs to investigate the negative effects of possible
historic/randomized control differences on power, type one error, and other
trial characteristics. Using this information, the researcher should design
the trial to mitigate these negative effects. Through simulation, the
\code{historic_sim()} function will estimate power and other user specified
clinical trial characteristics at user specified sample sizes given user
defined scenarios about historical and randomized control differences as well
as treatment effec ts and outcomes. The results from \code{historic_sim()}
and \code{simple_sim()} can be printed with \code{print_table()} and graphed
with \code{plot_table()} methods. Outcomes considered are Gaussian, Poisson,
Bernoulli, Lognormal, Weibull, and Piecewise Exponential.
>> Depends: R (>= 3.5.0)
>> License: GPL-3
>> Encoding: UTF-8
>> LazyData: true
>> Imports: eha (>= 2.5.1),
>> ggplot2 (>= 2.2.1),
>> survival (>= 2.41-3),
>> reshape2 (>= 1.4.3),
>> stats (>= 3.5.0)
>> RoxygenNote: 6.0.1
>>
>>
>> From: Hugh Parsonage <hugh.parson...@gmail.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 10:12 PM
>> To: Eggleston, Barry <beggles...@rti.org>
>> Cc: r-package-devel@r-project.org
>> Subject: Re: [R-pkg-devel] Get an empty note for "checking DESCRIPTION
>> meta-information" when I run devtools::build_win()
>>
>> Thank you. Could you provide the contents of DESCRIPTION too? That might
provide the richest clue. If you have a link to an online copy of the package
that could be helpful too.
>> On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 at 12:01 Eggleston, Barry
<beggles...@rti.org<mailto:beggles...@rti.org>> wrote:
>> I am working through my first package submission. When I checked my
package using devtools::build_win(), I got no errors and two notes. One note
is simply the expected note that my package is a new submission. My second
note involves DESCRIPTION meta-information, but nothing is printed so I don't
know what to focus on. I have copied the important parts of my 00check.log
from CRAN below for context. What areas of my DESCRIPTION file might create
such an empty note? Thanks in advance for any help you might give me.
>>
>> * checking CRAN incoming feasibility ... NOTE
>> Maintainer: 'Barry Eggleston
<beggles...@rti.org<mailto:beggles...@rti.org><mailto:beggles...@rti.org<mailto:beggles...@rti.org>>>'
>>
>> New submission
>> * checking package namespace information ... OK
>> * checking package dependencies ... OK
>> * checking if this is a source package ... OK
>> * checking if there is a namespace ... OK
>> * checking for hidden files and directories ... OK
>> * checking for portable file names ... OK
>> * checking whether package 'BayesCTDesign' can be installed ... OK
>> * checking installed package size ... OK
>> * checking package directory ... OK
>> * checking DESCRIPTION meta-information ... NOTE
>>
>> * checking top-level files ... OK
>> * checking for left-over files ... OK
>> * checking index information ... OK
>> * checking package subdirectories ... OK
>> * checking R files for non-ASCII characters ... OK
>> * checking R files for syntax errors ... OK
>> * loading checks for arch 'i386'
>> ** checking whether the package can be loaded ... OK
>> ** checking whether the package can be loaded with stated dependencies
>> ... OK
>> ** checking whether the package can be unloaded cleanly ... OK
>> ** checking whether the namespace can be loaded with stated
>> dependencies ... OK
>> ** checking whether the namespace can be unloaded cleanly ... OK
>> ** checking loading without being on the library search path ... OK
>> ** checking use of S3 registration ... OK
>> * loading checks for arch 'x64'
>> ** checking whether the package can be loaded ... OK
>> ** checking whether the package can be loaded with stated dependencies
>> ... OK
>> ** checking whether the package can be unloaded cleanly ... OK
>> ** checking whether the namespace can be loaded with stated
>> dependencies ... OK
>> ** checking whether the namespace can be unloaded cleanly ... OK
>> ** checking loading without being on the library search path ... OK
>> ** checking use of S3 registration ... OK
>> * checking dependencies in R code ... OK
>> * checking S3 generic/method consistency ... OK
>> * checking replacement functions ... OK
>> * checking foreign function calls ... OK
>> * checking R code for possible problems ... [41s] OK
>> * checking Rd files ... OK
>> * checking Rd metadata ... OK
>> * checking Rd line widths ... OK
>> * checking Rd cross-references ... OK
>> * checking for missing documentation entries ... OK
>> * checking for code/documentation mismatches ... OK
>> * checking Rd \usage sections ... OK
>> * checking Rd contents ... OK
>> * checking for unstated dependencies in examples ... OK
>> * checking examples ...
>> ** running examples for arch 'i386' ... [19s] OK
>> ** running examples for arch 'x64' ... [22s] OK
>> * checking PDF version of manual ... OK
>> * DONE
>> Status: 2 NOTEs
>>
>> Barry
>>
>>
>> [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> R-package-devel@r-project.org<mailto:R-package-devel@r-project.org>
>> mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
>>
>> [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> 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
______________________________________________
R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
