Feature request: Add `+` for rulesets

[beniaminogreen]

Hi there, thanks for writing such a fantastic package!

I'm writing to ask if you can implement the + operator to combine several rulesets. This would allow users to combine several rulesets programatically and concisely.

I often find I would like to do this if I have sets of rules to check several smaller datasets which then get combined into a larger dataset . I would like to be able to easily define checks on the smaller datasets and then combine them all and run them on the larger datasets using the + operator.

Here's a quick example on how this could work.

ruleset_a <- ruleset(
  rule(mpg > 10 & mpg < 30) # mpg goes up to 34
)
rulesset_b <- ruleset(
  rule(cyl %in% c(4, 8)), # missing 6 cyl
  rule(vs %in% c(0, 1), allow_na = TRUE)
)

ruleset_a+ruleset_b 
#> <Verification Ruleset with 3 elements>
#>   [1] 'Rule for: mpg' matching `mpg > 10 & mpg < 30` (allow_na: FALSE)
#>   [2] 'Rule for: cyl' matching `cyl %in% c(4, 8)` (allow_na: FALSE)
#>   [3] 'Rule for: vs' matching `vs %in% c(0, 1)` (allow_na: TRUE)

Threw this together in about 10 mins, so I am ofc happy to go back and forth and make iterations until it's something you are happy with, if you think this is a good direction to go in.

Best, Ben

[DavZim]

Hi Ben,

thanks for the PR (and on a related note congrats to the sucess of zoomerjoin <3).

I like the idea of having an option to combine rulesets. I am at the moment unsure whether I would want to overload the + operator or have a function like data.table::rbindlist() (maybe bindlist(list(ruleset1, ruleset2, ruleset3))). Maybe both would be possible.

Also, I would like to have a couple of tests that cover some use-cases. And last but not least, feel free to add yourself to the DESCRIPTION file.

Best, David

[beniaminogreen]

I very much like the suggestion to add a bind_rules or something similar to allow users to programatically combine a list of rulsets and rules. I've gone ahead and implemented this. Under the hood, I've done this by improving the overloading of + so that you can now also add:

• a rule with a rule
• a rule with a ruleset
• a ruleset with a rule
• a ruleset with a ruleset

Here's a snippet showing off this new behavior.

rule_1 <- rule(mpg > 10 & mpg < 30) # mpg goes up to 34
rule_2 <- rule(cyl %in% c(4, 8)) # missing 6 cyl
rule_3 <- rule(vs %in% c(0, 1), allow_na = TRUE)

# combine rules with rules
rule_1 + rule_2 
#> <Verification Ruleset with 2 elements>
#>   [1] 'Rule for: mpg' matching `mpg > 10 & mpg < 30` (allow_na: FALSE)
#>   [2] 'Rule for: cyl' matching `cyl %in% c(4, 8)` (allow_na: FALSE)

# combine rulesets with rules
ruleset(rule_1, rule_2) + rule_3
#> <Verification Ruleset with 3 elements>
#>   [1] 'Rule for: mpg' matching `mpg > 10 & mpg < 30` (allow_na: FALSE)
#>   [2] 'Rule for: cyl' matching `cyl %in% c(4, 8)` (allow_na: FALSE)
#>   [3] 'Rule for: vs' matching `vs %in% c(0, 1)` (allow_na: TRUE)

# combine rules with rulesets
rule_1 + ruleset(rule_2, rule_3) 
#> <Verification Ruleset with 3 elements>
#>   [1] 'Rule for: mpg' matching `mpg > 10 & mpg < 30` (allow_na: FALSE)
#>   [2] 'Rule for: cyl' matching `cyl %in% c(4, 8)` (allow_na: FALSE)
#>   [3] 'Rule for: vs' matching `vs %in% c(0, 1)` (allow_na: TRUE)

# rulesets with rulesets
ruleset(rule_1) + ruleset(rule_2, rule_3) 
#> <Verification Ruleset with 3 elements>
#>   [1] 'Rule for: mpg' matching `mpg > 10 & mpg < 30` (allow_na: FALSE)
#>   [2] 'Rule for: cyl' matching `cyl %in% c(4, 8)` (allow_na: FALSE)
#>   [3] 'Rule for: vs' matching `vs %in% c(0, 1)` (allow_na: TRUE)

# combine a list of rulsets and rules with `bind_rules`
bind_rules(list(rule_1, rule_2, ruleset(rule_3)))
#> <Verification Ruleset with 3 elements>
#>   [1] 'Rule for: mpg' matching `mpg > 10 & mpg < 30` (allow_na: FALSE)
#>   [2] 'Rule for: cyl' matching `cyl %in% c(4, 8)` (allow_na: FALSE)
#>   [3] 'Rule for: vs' matching `vs %in% c(0, 1)` (allow_na: TRUE)

^{Created on 2023-10-16 with reprex v2.0.2}

If you think this is a promising direction, I would love to spruce up the documentation, and can add some examples. I've also gone ahead and added some tests to verify that the + method and bind_rules are working as expected.

[DavZim]

I have added two comments to your code. I like where this is going, the only thing that I think is missing are duplications in rules. How do we want to handle them? Drop duplications or do we want to keep them? What do you think makes more sense?

[beniaminogreen]

Just made both of those changes - thanks for taking a look at them.

How to handle duplicates is a good question. I think that keeping or removing duplicates makes sense as long as the documentation is very explicit about it.

I have just made a change to remove duplicates when adding two sets together. This makes the behavior consistent with what a user might expect when taking the union of two sets - duplicates will automatically be removed, because sets don't contain duplicates.

[DavZim]

Looks good to me. I'll run the tests and then merge the PR.

[DavZim]

There is one error in the automated tests https://github.com/DavZim/dataverifyr/actions/runs/6547484442/job/17788344146#step:6:137

[beniaminogreen]

Thanks for flagging this. I think the github runner is set to be more strict than the one on my PC. Just fixed the warning and the note it raised.

Edit: I think the issue was I was using devtools::test() not devtools::check() because I did not have duckdb installed on the machine I am using.

[beniaminogreen]

Sorry, realized there was another issue. Just tested with devtools::check_man() and devtools::check() and it all looks good now.