-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 997
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
More potential rchk issues #6257
Comments
I'm not sure if these are new in dev, or due to a new version of rchk, or just that rchk only reports certain issues on CRAN. Anyway, we should at least investigate these before release. |
* Remove {UN,}SET_S4_OBJECT usage * handle asS4 from R side * tweak NES * switch to C API * restore dogroups code using public API * new test * adjust NEWS * IS_S4_OBJECT --> isS4
I do see {arrow} doing so: They are erroring on 3 different types of rchk outputs ("Suspicious call"/[UP]/[PB]) @jonkeane (original author of that workflow) how has your experience been thus far? Is it reliable & fast (e.g. <10min) enough? Are there false positives? |
We added this when we were given a 2 week warning shortly after it was introduced. It helped immensely confirming that we passed this check. I don't think we've ever run into a problem with it again (in other words, we haven't introduced anything that caused it to have a true positive since we added it + fixed the issues that were there)
We run it in our extended checks (called crossbow) which run once a day on main (that is, they aren't part of checks on every commit). Here's an example run, the vast majority of time there is spent installing dependencies (35 minutes of 38 minutes total). I don't think this job has ever failed outside of something catastrophic like
I've never seen a false positive, and checking for the last 120 days, it has succeeded each day. If you care to, you can confirm this using the crossbow report and searching for
We have not gone back to confirm that these are still the only ones that CRAN is checking (or if they've updated the running scripts to allow for a non-clean exit on error. But since we haven't had any issues either with rchks not catching or it erroring otherwise, not invested time to make sure that's the totality of what CRAN cares about for these. Overall, it's been very lightweight for us and haven't had any false positive or other issues running it. |
Thanks so much @jonkeane! Our build step is pretty fast so this whole GHA only takes ~3 minutes, we'll run it on every push. |
Closing, let's open new issues to improve on memory management further. |
Originally posted by @ben-schwen in #6249 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: