search

ropensci-review-tools / roreviewapi

API endpoint for package reviews via ropensci-review-bot
https://docs.ropensci.org/roreviewapi
4 stars 1 forks source link

Error in editor_check for tsbox #13

Closed mpadge closed 3 years ago

mpadge commented 3 years ago

@christophsax submitted tsbox which prompted a check response that included one rcmdcheck error because of apparent issues with the installation of seasonal. Need to check and fix.

mpadge commented 3 years ago

Caused by incomplete upgrade of Docker container from R4.0 -> R4.1. Should be fixed via ropensci-review-tools/pkgcheck/issues/64

mpadge commented 3 years ago

@christophsax I've found the cause of the problems. Our check system is built on top of the BSPM Docker image because of advantages clearly explained in this arXiv paper. In general this is superior to RSPM or other systems for ability to properly cross-link shared system libraries. However, in the case of x13binary -> seasonal it fails. You can try this yourself to reproduce:

  1. docker pull rocker/r-bspm:20.04, then in that container start up R and
  2. install.packages(c("x13binary", "seasonal"))
  3. library(seasonal)

The last step fails, because the x13binary libs aren't properly linked. The whole thing nevertheless cross-links and works properly with just seasonal installed. I can easily do a work-around for our present purposes, but the general bspm failure will remain an issue for the (admittedly likely very few) people who rely on that. If you want to look further there, I can draw it to the attention of the BSPM maintainers.

ropensci-review-bot commented 3 years ago

Checks for tsbox (v0.3.1.9001)

git hash: aad57cea

Package License: GPL-3

1. rOpenSci Statistical Standards (srr package)

This package is in the following category:

:heavy_check_mark: All applicable standards [v0.0.1] have been documented in this package

Click here to see the report of author-reported standards compliance of the package with links to associated lines of code, which can be re-generated locally by running the srr_report() function from within a local clone of the repository.

2. Statistical Properties

This package features some noteworthy statistical properties which may need to be clarified by a handling editor prior to progressing.

Details of statistical properties (click to open)

The package has: - code in R (100% in 53 files) and - 1 authors - 3 vignettes - no internal data file - 2 imported packages - 63 exported functions (median 7 lines of code) - 277 non-exported functions in R (median 9 lines of code) --- Statistical properties of package structure as distributional percentiles in relation to all current CRAN packages The following terminology is used: - `loc` = "Lines of Code" - `fn` = "function" - `exp`/`not_exp` = exported / not exported The final measure (`fn_call_network_size`) is the total number of calls between functions (in R), or more abstract relationships between code objects in other languages. Values are flagged as "noteworthy" when they lie in the upper or lower 5th percentile. |measure | value| percentile|noteworthy | |:------------------------|-----:|----------:|:----------| |files_R | 53| 96.0| | |files_vignettes | 3| 90.8| | |files_tests | 44| 98.7| | |loc_R | 2649| 88.3| | |loc_vignettes | 344| 80.6| | |loc_tests | 1951| 92.1| | |num_vignettes | 3| 93.1| | |n_fns_r | 340| 93.4| | |n_fns_r_exported | 63| 90.4| | |n_fns_r_not_exported | 277| 93.8| | |n_fns_per_file_r | 4| 51.4| | |num_params_per_fn | 1| 1.1|TRUE | |loc_per_fn_r | 8| 29.0| | |loc_per_fn_r_exp | 7| 14.2| | |loc_per_fn_r_not_exp | 9| 41.9| | |rel_whitespace_R | 25| 91.6| | |rel_whitespace_vignettes | 32| 87.8| | |rel_whitespace_tests | 28| 98.0|TRUE | |doclines_per_fn_exp | 41| 51.1| | |doclines_per_fn_not_exp | 0| 0.0|TRUE | |fn_call_network_size | 475| 94.6| | ---

2a. Network visualisation

Interactive network visualisation of calls between objects in package can be viewed by clicking here

3. goodpractice and other checks

Details of goodpractice and other checks (click to open)

### 3a. Continuous Integration Badges [![github](https://github.com/christophsax/tsbox/workflows/R-CMD-check/badge.svg)](https://github.com/christophsax/tsbox/actions) **GitHub Workflow Results** |name |conclusion |sha |date | |:-----------|:----------|:------|:----------| |R-CMD-check |success |aad57c |2021-09-18 | --- ### 3b. `goodpractice` results ### `R CMD check` with [rcmdcheck](https://r-lib.github.io/rcmdcheck/) rcmdcheck found no errors, warnings, or notes ### Test coverage with [covr](https://covr.r-lib.org/) Package coverage: 81.17 ### Cyclocomplexity with [cyclocomp](https://github.com/MangoTheCat/cyclocomp) The following functions have cyclocomplexity >= 15: function | cyclocomplexity --- | --- ts_span | 34 time_shift | 21 ts_plot | 21 copy_class | 19 ### Static code analyses with [lintr](https://github.com/jimhester/lintr) [lintr](https://github.com/jimhester/lintr) found the following 178 potential issues: message | number of times --- | --- Lines should not be more than 80 characters. | 178

Package Versions

|package |version | |:--------|:---------| |pkgstats |0.0.0.311 | |pkgcheck |0.0.1.489 | |srr |0.0.1.107 |

Editor-in-Chief Instructions:

This package is in top shape and may be passed on to a handling editor

mpadge commented 3 years ago

@christophsax - There you go. Sorry about all of the muck-ups here, your package has really taken this system for a test. @noamross Can you please call check package on the submission issue again? Thanks!