Closed kamilsi closed 3 weeks ago
Package | Line Rate | Health |
---|---|---|
sdtm.oak | 88% | ✔ |
Summary | 88% (901 / 1023) | ✔ |
Hi @rammprasad: @kamilsi asked for my review too but I noticed you pushed a few commits just an hour ago. Do you intend to make further changes until tomorrow's meeting or may look into it?
Hi @rammprasad: @kamilsi asked for my review too but I noticed you pushed a few commits just an hour ago. Do you intend to make further changes until tomorrow's meeting or may look into it?
This is not ready for review. I have requested Kamil to look at my changes, replace the assertions, and add a test case. We will try and send it out for review tomorrow.
@kamilsi - this is working as expected. I made minor tweaks. Can you resolve the merge conflicts and prepare it for a second review and merge?
@ShiyuC @ramiromagno - Ready for your review.
I have fixed a few minor items. Once this PR is approved, we can address the issues below.
@ShiyuC @ramiromagno - Ready for your approval
I'm getting this check message about potential spelling errors:
< Potential spelling errors:
< WORD FOUND IN
< RFSTDTC derive_blfl.Rd:27
< RFXSTDTC derive_blfl.Rd:28
< TPT derive_blfl.Rd:35
< pre derive_blfl.Rd:77
< timpoints derive_blfl.Rd:35
< varaible derive_blfl.Rd:19
< xxTPT derive_blfl.Rd:73
< If these are false positive, run `spelling::update_wordlist()`.All Done!
I'm getting this check message about potential spelling errors:
< Potential spelling errors: < WORD FOUND IN < RFSTDTC derive_blfl.Rd:27 < RFXSTDTC derive_blfl.Rd:28 < TPT derive_blfl.Rd:35 < pre derive_blfl.Rd:77 < timpoints derive_blfl.Rd:35 < varaible derive_blfl.Rd:19 < xxTPT derive_blfl.Rd:73 < If these are false positive, run `spelling::update_wordlist()`.All Done!
I will address this.
We now have even more
> spelling::spell_check_package()
WORD FOUND IN
addtional events_domain.Rmd:274
appicable findings_domain.Rmd:458
CMGRPID cnd_df.Rmd:49
events_domain.Rmd:191
CMMODIFY events_domain.Rmd:358
CMSTRTPT events_domain.Rmd:247
CMSTTPT events_domain.Rmd:278
CMTRT cnd_df.Rmd:49
events_domain.Rmd:191
CRF events_domain.Rmd:90
datetime algorithms.Rmd:38
events_domain.Rmd:60,219
devleoped findings_domain.Rmd:559
DIABP findings_domain.Rmd:201
eCRF algorithms.Rmd:15
events_domain.Rmd:88
study_sdtm_spec.Rmd:44,55,58,58,61
eDT algorithms.Rmd:15
events_domain.Rmd:88
study_sdtm_spec.Rmd:44,55,71,73
hardcode algorithms.Rmd:38
events_domain.Rmd:61,62,245,276
hardcoding events_domain.Rmd:247,278
MDBDR events_domain.Rmd:29
MDBTM events_domain.Rmd:29
MDEDR events_domain.Rmd:29
MDETM events_domain.Rmd:29
MDR algorithms.Rmd:24
study_sdtm_spec.Rmd:40
MDRAW events_domain.Rmd:29
mmm events_domain.Rmd:221
NonCRF events_domain.Rmd:90
OID events_domain.Rmd:51
findings_domain.Rmd:33
OXYSAT findings_domain.Rmd:201
px algorithms.Rmd:34,218
SYS findings_domain.Rmd:118
SYSBP findings_domain.Rmd:118,147
VSALL findings_domain.Rmd:201
yyyy events_domain.Rmd:221
Edgar: I was getting that too earlier but no longer with the most recent version of the code. Have you pulled meanwhile?
On Thu, 20 Jun 2024, 17:07 edgar-manukyan, @.***> wrote:
I'm getting this check message about potential spelling errors:
< Potential spelling errors: < WORD FOUND IN < RFSTDTC derive_blfl.Rd:27 < RFXSTDTC derive_blfl.Rd:28 < TPT derive_blfl.Rd:35 < pre derive_blfl.Rd:77 < timpoints derive_blfl.Rd:35 < varaible derive_blfl.Rd:19 < xxTPT derive_blfl.Rd:73 < If these are false positive, run
spelling::update_wordlist()
.All Done!I will address this.
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/pharmaverse/sdtm.oak/pull/49#issuecomment-2181058249, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEXRG4DVVRP6M5Y7242CIATZIL425AVCNFSM6AAAAABHNGLO36VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCOBRGA2TQMRUHE . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>
@ramiromagno, correct, I pulled and I got even more spelling mistakes, will push shortly.
@ramiromagno, sorry for confusion, I was fixing in the 51-documentation-updates-v01
Now I switched to 18-last-obs-before-exposure-flag-and-baseline-flag
, pulled and I see the following and will push shortly
> spelling::spell_check_package()
WORD FOUND IN
CMGRPID cnd_df.Rmd:49
CMTRT cnd_df.Rmd:49
eCRF algorithms.Rmd:15
study_sdtm_spec.Rmd:44,55,58,58,61
eDT algorithms.Rmd:15
study_sdtm_spec.Rmd:44,55,71,73
MDR algorithms.Rmd:24
study_sdtm_spec.Rmd:40
pre derive_blfl.Rd:77
algorithms.Rmd:24
px algorithms.Rmd:34,211
RFSTDTC derive_blfl.Rd:27
RFXSTDTC derive_blfl.Rd:28
timpoints derive_blfl.Rd:35
TPT derive_blfl.Rd:35
varaible derive_blfl.Rd:19
xxTPT derive_blfl.Rd:73
Have you pulled? :) because those spelling issues should have been fixed by now...
On Thu, 20 Jun 2024, 17:26 edgar-manukyan, @.***> wrote:
Now I switched to 18-last-obs-before-exposure-flag-and-baseline-flag and I see the following and will push shortly
spelling::spell_check_package() WORD FOUND IN CMGRPID cnd_df.Rmd:49 CMTRT cnd_df.Rmd:49 eCRF algorithms.Rmd:15 study_sdtm_spec.Rmd:44,55,58,58,61 eDT algorithms.Rmd:15 study_sdtm_spec.Rmd:44,55,71,73 MDR algorithms.Rmd:24 study_sdtm_spec.Rmd:40 pre derive_blfl.Rd:77 algorithms.Rmd:24 px algorithms.Rmd:34,211 RFSTDTC derive_blfl.Rd:27 RFXSTDTC derive_blfl.Rd:28 timpoints derive_blfl.Rd:35 TPT derive_blfl.Rd:35 varaible derive_blfl.Rd:19 xxTPT derive_blfl.Rd:73
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/pharmaverse/sdtm.oak/pull/49#issuecomment-2181093234, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEXRG4FT3EGGQBWGJ5ZOGO3ZIL7DPAVCNFSM6AAAAABHNGLO36VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCOBRGA4TGMRTGQ . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>
@ramiromagno, the spellings should be good now. Can you please approve?
Have you pulled? :) because those spelling issues should have been fixed by now...
I pulled and there were few findings, I fixed those and added the words from the https://github.com/pharmaverse/sdtm.oak/pull/56 as well.
I will fix the conflicts
@rammprasad, please verify the functionality of the new code additions. The existing examples confirm basic operations, but I was unable to fully test the baseline visit logic due to unmarked baseline visits in the study configuration file. Your insights or additional test cases would be helpful.