KentonWhite / ProjectTemplate

A template utility for R projects that provides a skeletal project.
http://projecttemplate.net
GNU General Public License v3.0
623 stars 159 forks source link

Project suggestion: Convert `ProjectTemplate` to `tidyverse` #230

Open rsangole opened 6 years ago

rsangole commented 6 years ago

@Hugovdberg - making a space for you to document your thoughts on this. I recall you mentioned this in #220 .

Hugovdberg commented 6 years ago

Ok, I'll do this in steps, it appears I can't write this proposal all in one go..

A large part of the R community, among which I suspect a large part of the ProjectTemplate users, are migrating to the tidyverse packages by Hadley Wickham. A major advantage of these packages is their uniform interface to functions (like the convention to always take data as a first argument) in combination with the high performance. A few of the major packages in the tidyverse that can be useful in the internals of ProjectTemplate are:

Because inside several functions there is actually some data manipulation, and of course we import several types of files. There are some caveats though:

rsangole commented 6 years ago

Thanks for getting this kicked off. As I think of things, I'll append too.

One thing that I'd like to consider is using assertive as the pipe-able tool of choice to writing robust unit tests. If you haven't used it before, give it a go. It's a very expressive and tidyverse friendly package.

Hugovdberg commented 6 years ago

@rsangole I haven't used assertive yet, but I would say that changing the tests is something to be done with much care. We should NOT convert library functions to tidyverse while at the same time changing the tests. If assertive is a great improvement over testthat then we should either:

  1. build a complete set of redundant tests and only after all existing cases are covered remove the old tests, and then start changing the code; or
  2. Update the library code to the tidyverse and then prove using the old tests that nothing has changed we don't want to change, and only then change the tests (again by building redundant tests and then removing the old tests).

I think that option 2 is the best if we don't want interface changes. If we do accept interface changes we might also first convert the tests and then change the library code.

Does assertive integrate with the RStudio build tools and devtools::test() by the way?

KentonWhite commented 6 years ago

We would also need to consider if assertive will work with travis.

rsangole commented 6 years ago

Agree with both @Hugovdberg and @KentonWhite . We should not try and 'fix' what currently works. I was of the opinion that:

Does assertive integrate with the RStudio build tools and devtools::test() by the way? We would also need to consider if assertive will work with travis.

I don't know answers to either of these questions. I can read up and check.

bugsysiegals commented 5 years ago

Any ETA on how far off this is from realization? I've had to rewrite a bunch of code because the field names being imported are now with a dot between them, which may not be a bad option, but would be nice to import without doing this to avoid a lot of code rewrite. I don't have a huge amount of extra time but if there's anything I can do to help, let me know.

KentonWhite commented 5 years ago

A ways off. There are issues with backwards compatibility. Not every project is tidyverse compliate. Bioconductor, which represents a large user base from the biological sciences, are not tidyverse compliant. Moving everything over to tidyverse causes problems for those users.