-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 192
Partial fix for upcoming testthat release #2937
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
`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.
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. 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. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
Thanks @hadley! NVM, confirmed |
AFAICT you were only failing the {lintr} check, the main thing was by switching from Thanks for the proactive fix! Your release time is perfectly fine. We are overdue for a release anyway. |
expect_success()
andexpect_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.