From kasperdanielhansen at gmail.com  Wed Sep  5 02:19:47 2012
From: kasperdanielhansen at gmail.com (Kasper Daniel Hansen)
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 20:19:47 -0400
Subject: [Rd] if(--as-cran)?
In-Reply-To: <50467A5E.2080106@gmail.com>
References: <50465D7F.5060004@gmail.com>
	<0CAEE2B1235DF643B0F5E1EAE1487B530946D655@023-CH1MPN1-043.023d.mgd.msft.net>
	<20550.28445.956167.112449@max.nulle.part> <504671FC.9030800@gmail.com>
	<20550.30155.399375.438614@max.nulle.part> <50467A5E.2080106@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAC2h7usPuepziN4ngNg2F_9jOPPF_doTJR7bnfFbpX_0gowHtw@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 04/09/2012 5:42 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>>
>> On 4 September 2012 at 17:26, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
>> | On 04/09/2012 5:14 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>> | > An add-on argument to the already established option --as-cran may be
>> the
>> | > best.
>> | >
>> | > And to iterate, what bugs me is that for _me_ on _my_ machine
>> developing _my_
>> | > package I have remember how to enable what is now (as per CRAN's
>> decree)
>> | > "non-standard behaviour" of full testing.  I fully agree with what
>> Terry had
>> | > said: more tests are better (when we develop).  I want the full suite
>> at my
>> | > end; that is after all why we wrote it!
>> |
>> | You don't have to remember that, you need to figure it out once, write a
>> | script that sets the environment variables that enable it, and then you
>> | can forget it.
>>
>> "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not."
>>
>> The main test script long had exactly such a setting; I wrote what I wrote
>> because it is _still the wrong way around_ and as I happen to have added
>> to
>> unit tests this weekend _having suffered through precisely this setting_.
>>
>> But we are on different wavelengths here and I evidently do not get my
>> point
>> across to you.  And as you are the one who could make a change where it
>> matters, I have no choice but to rest my case in frustration.
>
>
> If you want to give up, then give up, but then don't complain about the
> current behaviour.  If you want to fix it, then continue the discussion.
>
> You're right that we're on different wavelengths.  If you want some tests to
> run at home but not on CRAN, then somewhere there has to be a conditional.
> I'm suggesting that the conditional should be "if there's a tight time
> limit, skip this".
>
> I don't remember if this was your suggestion, but someone has suggested "if
> we're running with the --as-cran option, skip this" and others have
> suggested "if we're running on CRAN, skip this".   I don't see why you find
> my suggestion so objectionable.  If you want, I'll repeat why I find the
> other two suggestions objectionable.

I agree with Duncan that having an option long/short makes more sense
than with/without cran, as long as cran sets that option to be short.
I would also prefer a command line switch to R CMD check to an
environment variable, but I'll be very happy with a standardized
environment variable.

Kasper

>
> Duncan Murdoch
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel



[Rd] if(--as-cran)?
Kasper Daniel Hansen