From J.Gorecki at wit.edu.pl  Wed Nov  9 06:54:18 2016
From: J.Gorecki at wit.edu.pl (Jan Gorecki)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 21:54:18 -0800
Subject: [Rd] Running package tests and not stop on first fail
In-Reply-To: <CADRwj9-eK4tufYNnKazU_cpVuKb=ac9FXCTKx63DFGm+wqPM1A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABE2sp66ywzHW9LFOJ-Z0mRWWro62ZFGXppiFxPVqJC0gpssdQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<22555.5435.945673.692470@stat.math.ethz.ch>
	<4527a200-d3a1-bbed-6687-697aabef5b89@fredhutch.org>
	<CABE2sp5Da4vc8Qksk8nD_bn-pv2+MJcrYaB-2J44HGo5eow3pg@mail.gmail.com>
	<22556.43073.490072.801815@stat.math.ethz.ch>
	<22556.43796.305280.635245@max.nulle.part>
	<22556.45002.81234.741856@stat.math.ethz.ch>
	<CADRwj9-eK4tufYNnKazU_cpVuKb=ac9FXCTKx63DFGm+wqPM1A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABE2sp5D8426FPns_svjQGFRMRO8hV8RDgupqxGZXbbGgiEHVw@mail.gmail.com>

Sorry for late reply. I like the stop-on-error.
Thanks for merging.
Glad to be R contributor!

On 4 November 2016 at 09:42, Oliver Keyes <ironholds at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, 4 November 2016, Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch>
> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd at debian.org>
>> >>>>>     on Fri, 4 Nov 2016 10:36:52 -0500 writes:
>>
>>     > On 4 November 2016 at 16:24, Martin Maechler wrote: | My
>>     > proposed name '--no-stop-on-error' was a quick shot; if |
>>     > somebody has a more concise or better "English style"
>>     > wording | (which is somewhat compatible with all the other
>>     > options you see | from 'R CMD check --help'), | please
>>     > speak up.
>>
>>     > Why not keep it simple?  The similar feature this most
>>     > resembles is 'make -k' and its help page has
>>
>>     >        -k, --keep-going
>>
>>     >                    Continue as much as possible after an
>>     > error.  While the target that failed, and those that
>>     > depend on it, cannot be remade, the other dependencies of
>>     > these targets can be processed all the same.
>>
>> Yes, that would be quite a bit simpler and nice in my view.
>> One may think it to be too vague,
>
>
> Mmn, I would agree on vagueness (and it breaks the pattern set by other
> flags of human-readability). Deep familiarity with make is probably not
> something we should ask of everyone who needs to test a package, too.
>
> I quite like stop-on-error=true (exactly the same as the previous suggestion
> but shaves off some characters by inverting the Boolean)
>
>> notably from Brian Pedersen's mentioning that the examples are
>> already continued in any case if they lead to an error.
>>
>> Other opinions?
>>
>> ______________________________________________
>> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel



[Rd] Running package tests and not stop on first fail
Jan Gorecki