Skip to content

Conversation

hadley
Copy link
Member

@hadley hadley commented Sep 29, 2025

expect_success() and expect_failure() now test that you have exactly one success/failure and zero failures/successes. I can't quite figure out why the tests are still failing here; maybe it's something to do with recycling? I'm happy to help but I unfortunately I don't know enough about the lintr internals to figure out what's going wrong here.

We're planning to submit testthat to CRAN on Nov 10.

`expect_success()` and `expect_failure()` now test that you have exactly one success/failure and zero failures/successes. I can't quite figure out why the tests are still failing here; maybe it's something to do with recycling? I'm happy to help but I unfortunately I don't know enough about the lintr internals to figure out what's going wrong here.

We're planning to submit testthat to CRAN on Nov 10.
Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 29, 2025

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 99.24%. Comparing base (275ed7d) to head (8914fb0).

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2937      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   99.24%   99.24%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         129      129              
  Lines        7283     7274       -9     
==========================================
- Hits         7228     7219       -9     
  Misses         55       55              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@MichaelChirico
Copy link
Collaborator

MichaelChirico commented Oct 8, 2025

Thanks @hadley! Can I check if this is back-compatible? We have testthat (>= 3.2.1),, I just confirmed it works on 3.2.3 at least

NVM, confirmed succeed() and fail() are present in 3.2.1:

https://github.com/cran/testthat/blob/0c2c0a2c32a8442a4c3a6f0333e22b12678af1a5/R/expect-that.R#L53-L61

@MichaelChirico
Copy link
Collaborator

I can't quite figure out why the tests are still failing here

AFAICT you were only failing the {lintr} check, the main thing was by switching from Map() to a nested for loop it increased the cyclomatic complexity of the implementation enough to trigger a lint. I refactored the nested loops into a helper instead. Bonus -- we could drop the itr_env (replacing older <<- usage) in the new approach which I also find cleaner.

Thanks for the proactive fix! Your release time is perfectly fine. We are overdue for a release anyway.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants