Re: [Rd] Package development process?

From: Dominick Samperi <djsamperi_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 11:51:32 -0400

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Hadley Wickham <hadley_at_rice.edu> wrote:

> > The creation of a research compendium can be viewed as
> > a form of unit testing, and the fact that R has powerful tools
> > that support this process (Sweave) could be viewed as one of
> > its outstanding features (relating these comments back to
> > the topic of this thread).
>
> If anything, a research compendium would be an integration test, not a
> compendium. And many programming languages have something similar to
> sweave.
>
>
Yes, but I think this is where "R CMD check" shines (and also shows its limitations). Many languages include optional or advisory features, like adding
documentation to source code! But R CMD check gently nudges packages developers to actually add documentation for every R function, and the documentation format is well-defined, etc. Unfortunately, it says nothing about modules written in other languages.

On your comment about integration testing, I use vignettes to keep track of the mathematics of models that I build, along with quick tests of these models,
somewhat like a Mathematica notebook. This can be viewed as a form of "literate unit testing."

        [[alternative HTML version deleted]]



R-devel_at_r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel Received on Thu 17 Jun 2010 - 16:00:19 GMT

Archive maintained by Robert King, hosted by the discipline of statistics at the University of Newcastle, Australia.
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0, at Thu 17 Jun 2010 - 21:11:09 GMT.

Mailing list information is available at https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel. Please read the posting guide before posting to the list.

list of date sections of archive