Closed pawelru closed 3 months ago
Filename Stmts Miss Cover Missing
------------------------------ ------- ------ ------- ------------------------
R/check.R 37 37 0.00% 26-170
R/deps_installation_proposal.R 139 139 0.00% 58-269
R/desc_utils.R 71 43 39.44% 15-32, 108, 117-168, 186
R/get_ref.R 233 232 0.43% 13-455, 473-516
R/solve.R 84 84 0.00% 9-170
R/utils.R 66 42 36.36% 3-23, 41, 47, 57-104
TOTAL 630 577 8.41%
Filename Stmts Miss Cover
-------------- ------- ------ --------
R/desc_utils.R +1 +1 -0.56%
R/get_ref.R +15 +15 -0.03%
R/solve.R +3 +3 +100.00%
R/utils.R -4 -13 +14.94%
TOTAL +15 +6 +1.26%
Results for commit: 8a41033aed6cde5aba5d9de6eabe8fd8e51dca25
Minimum allowed coverage is 80%
:recycle: This comment has been updated with latest results
1 files 4 suites 2s :stopwatch: 41 tests 13 :white_check_mark: 28 :zzz: 0 :x: 94 runs 65 :white_check_mark: 29 :zzz: 0 :x:
Results for commit 8a41033a.
:recycle: This comment has been updated with latest results.
@averissimo please have a look if you can but this is not urgent
CLA Assistant Lite bot ✅ All contributors have signed the CLA
I have read the CLA Document and I hereby sign the CLA
I have read the CLA Document and I hereby sign the CLA
I'm testing my changes here: https://github.com/insightsengineering/teal.data/actions/workflows/scheduled.yaml?query=branch%3Aenhancements
This works for most cases, jsonlite
on {teal.data}
(and I suppose in others) is still trying to install the source version as the binary is not available in snapshots for versions prior to 2.8.7
(in snapshots from 2023-06-30).
We could bump rmarkdown
to 2.23
(from 2023-07-01) which will solve this particular problem.
I just did that (https://github.com/insightsengineering/teal.data/commit/63e5b4b06dde6e2d39e31574bb12ca4cad790c17) and it all passed -> https://github.com/insightsengineering/teal.data/actions/runs/9093304868
One great outcome of this PR is that it's a little bit faster when binaries were used. The aforementioned successful run took 6m 24s whereas the latest finished one - 9m 16s.
This is ready for review.
I have all 19 local branches that have rmarkdown (>=2.19)
updated to 2.23
and ready to push to create PRs. (bash was a timesaver here)
Also detected that rmarkdown
is missing from:
teal.widgets
, teal.modules.general
, citril.metadata
, osprey
and teal.goshawk
.
These packages have knitr
, but not rmarkdown
I have all 19 local branches that have
rmarkdown (>=2.19)
updated to2.23
and ready to push to create PRs. (bash was a timesaver here)Also detected that
rmarkdown
is missing from:
teal.widgets
,teal.modules.general
,citril.metadata
,osprey
andteal.goshawk
.These packages have
knitr
, but notrmarkdown
Thanks. Would you able to open PRs for these?
I just pushed changes with regards to the review comments. Unfortunately this is still WIP as the tests are failing. I will continue on this tomorrow
Results for commit 62e964c1c8f3439d3914f9a72b6a2599b764ef90
♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.
these are various enhancements that I have collected over a time of running verdepcheck on our codebase. That includes:
get_ref_release
will not return early but rather collects candidates and return ref for which ver is the maximum ver over candidatesget_release_date.remote_ref_github
will use pkgdepends to resolve ref and get commit sha and reach GH with that sha