Closed zdz2101 closed 4 months ago
Package | Line Rate | Health |
---|---|---|
admiral | 98% | ✔ |
Summary | 98% (4732 / 4820) | ✔ |
I had a look and it looks really good! I think the suppression of the warnings is fine in this context. The warnings themselves should be checked in a separate test IMO.
@bms63 @StefanThoma @millerg23 Added in a separate input object that plugs in for its appropriate warnings but also checks the return object is still valid
Thank you for your Pull Request! We have developed this task checklist from the Development Process Guide to help with the final steps of the process. Completing the below tasks helps to ensure our reviewers can maximize their time on your code as well as making sure the admiral codebase remains robust and consistent.
Please check off each taskbox as an acknowledgment that you completed the task or check off that it is not relevant to your Pull Request. This checklist is part of the Github Action workflows and the Pull Request will not be merged into the
main
branch until you have checked off each task.styler::style_file()
to style R and Rmd filesinst/cheatsheet/admiral_cheatsheet.pptx
and re-upload a PDF version of it to the same folder.devtools::document()
so all.Rd
files in theman
folder and theNAMESPACE
file in the project root are updated appropriatelyNEWS.md
under the header# admiral (development version)
if the changes pertain to a user-facing function (i.e. it has an@export
tag) or documentation aimed at users (rather than developers)pkgdown::build_site()
and check that all affected examples are displayed correctly and that all new functions occur on the "Reference" page.lintr::lint_package()
R CMD check
locally and address all errors and warnings -devtools::check()