ropensci / datapack

An R package to handle data packages
https://docs.ropensci.org/datapack
44 stars 9 forks source link

Prepare 1.4.1 release #127

Closed gothub closed 1 year ago

gothub commented 3 years ago
jeanetteclark commented 2 years ago

only one issue, which crops up on Fedora:

Last 13 lines of output:
  [ FAIL 1 | WARN 0 | SKIP 0 | PASS 312 ]

  ══ Failed tests ════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
  ── Error (test_DataPackage.R:414:2): BagIt serialization works ─────────────────
  Error in `zip(zipFile, files = list.files(recursive = TRUE), flags = "-q")`: argument 'zip' must be a non-empty character string
  Backtrace:
      ▆
   1. ├─datapack::serializeToBagIt(dp) at test_DataPackage.R:414:1
   2. └─datapack::serializeToBagIt(dp)
   3.   └─datapack .local(x, ...)
   4.     └─utils::zip(zipFile, files = list.files(recursive = TRUE), flags = "-q")

  [ FAIL 1 | WARN 0 | SKIP 0 | PASS 312 ]
  Error: Test failures
  Execution halted
jeanetteclark commented 2 years ago

after merging in Tommy's PR, the above test now passes.

@mbjones I think this is ready for you or someone else to run through testing before submitting to CRAN

mbjones commented 2 years ago

@jeanetteclark I fixed a typo in NEWS and updated the README, and ran check(cran=TRUE) locally -- everything seems to be good to go. I didn't see the OS results for rhub() in the cran-comments, which we use to record which specific OS/R versions we tested against. Could you provide that, and then go ahead and release() when you are ready.

jeanetteclark commented 2 years ago

Okay I can add that @mbjones. I'm curious about this checklist, there is a long list of different testing mechanisms. Can we thin this out for future releases since many seem redundant? For this package, I think we just need the rhub matrix below. For dataone we'll need a separate set of tests you can run with auth

mbjones commented 2 years ago

The rhub checks are great but not sufficient for CRAN, which requires the winbuilder release and devel checks. In addition, we generally check on one or two local MacOS installs which we are using for development -- typically I do this before sending to rhub because rhub is so slow that we want to have eliminated any problems before we send it. So, I think all of that testing is needed for any package submission to CRAN. Looking over the checklist, I think everything there is needed for a CRAN release and/or things we should do for every release, so I think the list should stay the same.

jeanetteclark commented 2 years ago

okay sounds good. I was debugging issues that arose from the rhub checks yesterday. took forever