which have 'noLD' 'Additional issues' reported on their CRAN results pages. And to quote the manual
Only test the accuracy of results if you have done a formal error analysis. Things such as checking that probabilities numerically sum to one are silly: numerical tests should always have a tolerance. That the tests on your platform achieve a particular tolerance says little about other platforms. R is configured by default to make use of long doubles where available, but they may not be available or be too slow for routine use. Most R platforms use ‘ix86’ or ‘x86_64’ CPUs: these use extended precision registers on some but not all of their FPU instructions. Thus the achieved precision can depend on the compiler version and optimization flags—our experience is that 32-bit builds tend to be less precise than 64-bit ones. But not all platforms use those CPUs, and not all which use them configure them to allow the use of extended precision. In particular, ARM CPUs do not (currently) have extended precision nor long doubles, and long double was 64-bit on HP/PA Linux.
If you must try to establish a tolerance empirically, configure and build R with --disable-long-double and use appropriate compiler flags (such as -ffloat-store and -fexcess-precision=standard for gcc, depending on the CPU type) to mitigate the effects of extended-precision calculations.
Packages partitionComparison and vpc do test for sums without a tolerance ....
Please submit a corrected update before Jan 24 to safely retain the package on CRAN.
--
Brian D. Ripley, ripley@stats.ox.ac.uk
Emeritus Professor of Applied Statistics, University of Oxford
Running the tests in ‘tests/testthat.R’ failed.
Complete output:
> library(testthat)
> library(recipes)
Loading required package: dplyr
Attaching package: 'dplyr'
The following object is masked from 'package:testthat':
matches
The following objects are masked from 'package:stats':
filter, lag
The following objects are masked from 'package:base':
intersect, setdiff, setequal, union
Loading required package: broom
Attaching package: 'recipes'
The following object is masked from 'package:stats':
step
>
> test_check(package = "recipes")
── 1. Failure: correct means and std devs (@test_center_scale.R#34) ───────────
tidy(standardized_trained, 2) not equal to `scal_tibble_tr`.
Rows in x but not y: 2. Rows in y but not x: 2.
── 2. Failure: defaults (@test_classdist.R#36) ────────────────────────────────
`tidy_exp_tr` not equal to tidy(trained, number = 1).
Rows in x but not y: 10, 9, 8, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1. Rows in y but not x: 10, 9, 8, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1.
── 3. Failure: correct PCA values (@test_pca.R#49) ────────────────────────────
`tidy_exp_tr` not equal to tidy(pca_extract_trained, number = 3).
Rows in x but not y: 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15[...]. Rows in y but not x: 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15[...].
══ testthat results ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
OK: 690 SKIPPED: 2 FAILED: 3
1. Failure: correct means and std devs (@test_center_scale.R#34)
2. Failure: defaults (@test_classdist.R#36)
3. Failure: correct PCA values (@test_pca.R#49)
Error: testthat unit tests failed
Execution halted
* checking for unstated dependencies in vignettes ... OK
* checking package vignettes in ‘inst/doc’ ... OK
* checking re-building of vignette outputs ... [22s/42s] OK
* checking PDF version of manual ... OK
* DONE
This issue has been automatically locked. If you believe you have found a related problem, please file a new issue (with a reprex https://reprex.tidyverse.org) and link to this issue.
On 12/19/17:
The errors are shown here but are: