From brian at braverock.com  Fri Nov  4 16:37:18 2016
From: brian at braverock.com (Brian G. Peterson)
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2016 10:37:18 -0500
Subject: [Rd] Running package tests and not stop on first fail
In-Reply-To: <22556.43073.490072.801815@stat.math.ethz.ch>
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>
Message-ID: <1478273838.17774.87.camel@brian-rcg>

On Fri, 2016-11-04 at 16:24 +0100, Martin Maechler wrote:
> >>>>> Jan Gorecki <J.Gorecki at wit.edu.pl>
> >>>>>     on Fri, 4 Nov 2016 11:20:37 +0000 writes:
> 
>     > Martin, I submitted very simple patch on
>     > https://bugs.r-project.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17176
> 
>     > Herve, While I like your idea, I prefer to keep my patch
>     > simple, it is now exactly what Martin mentions. I think it
>     > is a good start that can eventually be extended later for
>     > what you are asking.
> 
> I tend to agree; this seems indeed much easier than I
> anticipated.  Thank you, Jan!
> 
> I'm testing a version which uses the logical variable
> 'stop_on_error' rather than 'no_stop_on_error' (because
> !no_stop_on_error is hard to mentally parse quickly).
> 
> 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.

I might suggest 

--stop-tests-on-error

with default=TRUE to match current functionality.

This might avoid any confusion related to the behavior of continuing to
run examples on error in R CMD check.

Regards,

Brian



[Rd] Running package tests and not stop on first fail
Brian G. Peterson