I ran goodpractice::gp(), which flagged a few practices that might be changed to make code less fragile (though the quality of the code overall seems solid):
sapply() can return different structures, especially when simplify is not set to FALSE; vapply() is more stable.
F and T are variables that can be redefined; FALSE and TRUE are more stable.
The single-colon operator : can produce unexpected output on edge cases; the seq_*() functions are more stable.
It also indicated that only 65% of code lines are covered by tests.
While i follow these practices myself, i leave it to the developers to decide for themselves; they will not affect my review. : )
I ran
goodpractice::gp()
, which flagged a few practices that might be changed to make code less fragile (though the quality of the code overall seems solid):sapply()
can return different structures, especially whensimplify
is not set toFALSE
;vapply()
is more stable.F
andT
are variables that can be redefined;FALSE
andTRUE
are more stable.:
can produce unexpected output on edge cases; theseq_*()
functions are more stable.It also indicated that only 65% of code lines are covered by tests.
While i follow these practices myself, i leave it to the developers to decide for themselves; they will not affect my review. : )
Part of this JOSS review.