Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
better logic? #116
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
better logic? #116
Changes from 3 commits
0253994
1f14d4b
cbcc172
738f462
e905412
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
on CRAN it's like on CI (apart from the workflow in with-auth.yml) we only want to use the fixtures.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I see where you're going, but the double-negative of !NOT-THING isn't ideal. Can we word it as a positive-case, perhaps set "USE_CRAN: true" in the CI config and then it doesn't have to be explicitly disabled by users?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ouch I think this might be where the problem comes from (although I'd like to keep the idea of this code I took from
testthat:::on_cran()
)There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You shouldn't need to worry about
NOT_CRAN
as it is set by devtools (I just re-read?testthat::skip_on_cran
)There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Fair enough. Double-negatives are annoying though, though I doubt
testthat
would change it given the sheer number of downstream packages that would break ;)I'm no fan of calling package internals, but would it be better to call
To make the double-negative go away and also not duplicate their code into meetupr?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
well as it's not exported I don't think we can. 😬
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Fair enough. My own package-writing skills are less polished, I wasn't sure if we could access it during tests (obviously it's not relevant to a production install). Duplication it is - although we could copy the
on_cran()
function tointernals.R
and then add a link to the source. But I'm nitpicking here, for sure.