From m@tth|eu@@t|g|er @end|ng |rom gm@||@com  Sat Aug 10 01:12:20 2019
From: m@tth|eu@@t|g|er @end|ng |rom gm@||@com (Matthieu S)
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 16:12:20 -0700
Subject: [Rd] 
 R CMD check: should .Rout.save contain the new "Registered S3
 method overwritten by" message?
In-Reply-To: <CAEYvigL5LWD8CiMFxMW-FJoFE84XOe54Pwb5jHVx6hEymLsCNw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEYvigL5LWD8CiMFxMW-FJoFE84XOe54Pwb5jHVx6hEymLsCNw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEYvigKgnbQYHfmU+gW_3EPyOA3+DT0HqvFHRJU3+frcSZY23A@mail.gmail.com>

Hi

Following-up on this question. I don't understand why R CMD check creates
.Rout files that do not contain the message "Registered S3 method
overwritten by..." that I otherwise obtain with an interactive R session,
or with R CMD BATCH? Can I recreate the behaviour of R CMD check calling
directly R CMD BATCH?

Thanks!

Matthieu

Le lun. 5 ao?t 2019 ? 11:12, Matthieu S <matthieu.stigler at gmail.com> a
?crit :

> Hi
>
> Since I believe 3.6, there is a message when loading a package that
> overwrites S3 methods, reading like "Registered S3 method overwritten
> by...". Should this message be included in the xxx.Rout.save files saved in
> the tests/ folder of a package? It seems R CMD check is not happy about it?
>
> I simply ran R CMD BATCH xxx.R xxx.Rout.save but running later on R CMD
> check on the package complains about the presence of the "Registered S3
> method overwritten..." text? Did I do something wrong? Is this the correct
> way to do, and R CMD check should be updated? Or should I not include the
> "Registered S3 method overwritten"  in the .Rout.save (and how can I do
> that?)?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Matthieu
>

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]



[Rd] R CMD check: should .Rout.save contain the new "Registered S3 method overwritten by" message?
Matthieu S