From ironholds at gmail.com  Fri Nov  4 17:42:54 2016
From: ironholds at gmail.com (Oliver Keyes)
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 12:42:54 -0400
Subject: [Rd] Running package tests and not stop on first fail
In-Reply-To: <22556.45002.81234.741856@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>
	<22556.43796.305280.635245@max.nulle.part>
	<22556.45002.81234.741856@stat.math.ethz.ch>
Message-ID: <CADRwj9-eK4tufYNnKazU_cpVuKb=ac9FXCTKx63DFGm+wqPM1A@mail.gmail.com>

On Friday, 4 November 2016, Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch>
wrote:

> >>>>> Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd at debian.org <javascript:;>>
> >>>>>     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 <javascript:;> mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]



[Rd] Running package tests and not stop on first fail
Oliver Keyes