rstudio / shinyloadtest

Tools for load testing Shiny applications
https://rstudio.github.io/shinyloadtest
108 stars 22 forks source link

I am getting this errors when I run shinyloadtest_report(df, "report.html") #165

Open omtarful opened 2 weeks ago

omtarful commented 2 weeks ago

shinyloadtest_report(df, "report.html") report - Concurrency Legend [=====================================================================>---] 77/80 eta: 0sError in gtable_trim(): ! x must be a gtable object, not a <zeroGrob/grob/gDesc> object. Run rlang::last_trace() to see where the error occurred.

jzadra commented 2 weeks ago

I'm also having this issue.

R 4.3.0 shinyloadtest: 1.1.0 MacOS: 14.5 (23F79)

kmcd39 commented 1 week ago

Also having this issue. Nearly opened a separate issue about it.

My full error (a warning was also returned):

> test.report <- shinyloadtest::load_runs("run1")
> shinyloadtest::shinyloadtest_report(test.report, "run1.html")                                       
run1 - Concurrency Legend [=======================================================>] 413/416 eta: 1sError in `gtable_trim()`:
! `x` must be a gtable object, not a <zeroGrob/grob/gDesc> object.
Run `rlang::last_trace()` to see where the error occurred.
Warning message:
Returning more (or less) than 1 row per `summarise()` group was deprecated in dplyr 1.1.0.
ℹ Please use `reframe()` instead.
ℹ When switching from `summarise()` to `reframe()`, remember that `reframe()` always returns an
  ungrouped data frame and adjust accordingly.
ℹ The deprecated feature was likely used in the shinyloadtest package.
  Please report the issue at <https://github.com/rstudio/shinyloadtest/issues>.
jcheng5 commented 1 day ago

Sorry, I cannot reproduce this. Can someone email me at joe at posit dot co with a zipped up run directory?

udurraniAtPresage commented 13 hours ago

Sorry, I cannot reproduce this. Can someone email me at joe at posit dot co with a zipped up run directory?

@jcheng5 I sent you a zipped up run directory. Thanks for looking into this.

By the way, issue #163 is the same.