robustbase suggests/depends

[josherrickson]

Currently, robustbase is in Suggests, but testing against it requires it:

N  checking package dependencies (1.8s)
   Package suggested but not available for checking: ‘robustbase’

E  Some test files failed
   Running the tests in ‘tests/testthat.R’ failed.
   Last 13 lines of output:
      3.     └─base (local) withOneRestart(expr, restarts[[1L]])
      4.       └─base (local) doWithOneRestart(return(expr), restart)
     ── Error ('test.lmrob_methods.R:34:3'): bread.lmrob produces expected output ───
     <packageNotFoundError/error/condition>
     Error in `loadNamespace(x)`: there is no package called 'robustbase'
     Backtrace:
         ▆
      1. └─base::loadNamespace(x) at test.lmrob_methods.R:34:3
      2.   └─base::withRestarts(stop(cond), retry_loadNamespace = function() NULL)
      3.     └─base (local) withOneRestart(expr, restarts[[1L]])
      4.       └─base (local) doWithOneRestart(return(expr), restart)

     [ FAIL 4 | WARN 0 | SKIP 0 | PASS 1891 ]
     Error: Test failures
     Execution halted

Should we move robustbase to Imports, or should we update the tests? (I assume the latter but want confirmation from those of you using it.)

[benthestatistician]

Based on a quick read of Wickham's advice, I don't know that it needs to be in either one. Does it? I think a listing in "Enhances:" would communicate what we're trying to say, although elsewhere in the same book Wickham recommends against use of that field:

Enhances: packages listed here are “enhanced” by your package. Typically, this means you provide methods for classes defined in another package (a sort of reverse Suggests). But it’s hard to define what that means, so we don’t recommend using Enhances.

Absent a more specific reason not to, I'd be tempted to just put it in Enhances (and nowhere else).

[josherrickson]

Sure enough. I'll get the tests tweaked and that moved over when I get a chance.