search for: checkrd

...ear developers, I came across with a bug while parsing Rd files. Given is the following minimal Rd file: ---- \name{foo} \title{foo} \description{ #ifdef windows win #endifd #ifdef unix unix #endif } ---- By accident I have a typo at line 6, instead of having #endif I typed #endifd. If I run checkRd(), parse_Rd(), Rd2HTML(), or others including the command line "R CMD Rconv" R will freeze and the only chance I have is to kill R. As far as I can tell for checkRd() the problem is the internal function prepare_Rd() which runs for ever. Is there a way to avoid having that freezing beha...

Hello, When running tools::checkRd() on a single .Rd file, should I expect the output to be the same as that generated by R CMD check when it checks .Rd files? R CMD check finds the following warning: * checking Rd \usage sections ... WARNING > Assignments in \usage in documentation object 'ilm': > result <- ilm(...

On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 17:13:05 +0100 Martin Becker <martin.becker at mx.uni-saarland.de> wrote: > More specifically, a 'Lost braces' NOTE is issued (at least > sometimes) when using the \insertRef{...}{...} command from the > Rdpack package. Does anything change if you use the development version of Rdpack (not currently on CRAN)? Apparently, the latest commit performs some

This is a known issue already reported to the Rdpack maintainer. In some cases, the Rd code generated by Rdpack's macros contains unnecessary braces that trigger the check note because they match the pattern "text{text}" that detects common mistakes like "code{x}" (missing an escape for the macro name). Rdpack's fork of tools::deparseLatex() is being updated to

Dear developers, while preparing to submit a package to CRAN, I noticed that a check for lost braces in Rd files (which is enabled in the current r-devel when checking with the '--as-cran' option) seems to return false positives. More specifically, a 'Lost braces' NOTE is issued (at least sometimes) when using the \insertRef{...}{...} command from the Rdpack package. Since

Hi-- I googled the above error and found previous postings about this error on the list. I was having a little difficulty implementing the advice though. The suggestions were to use: traceback() and checkRd(). I'm using R in the directory in which the .Rd file with the problem is located, but I'm having difficulty figuring out how to proceed. I've looked through the help pages for traceback() and checkRd(), and would greatly appreciate any advice for how to find the errors and fix them....

On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 2:21 PM Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com> wrote: > I think I found the bug. The tools::checkRd function only processes > \Sexpr's with "stage=render". I think the author (who might have been > me, I forget) assumed that would imply all the earlier stages as well, > but apparently it doesn't. > > So you could use that as a workaround. > > I'll do so...

...be possible to > work around it with something like this? > > \examples{ > \Sexpr[stage=install,strip.white=FALSE,results=rd]{pkg:::decorate_code(' > CODE > ')} > } Thanks for the reply! Unfortunately it seems that \Sexpr is not allowed inside \examples, either: checkRd: (7) ps_handle.Rd:46-47: Tag \Sexpr is invalid in a \examples block G. [...]

...> Extensions'. The package I'm looking at is one that I did not write which has 34 .Rd files. This warning does not tell me which file to look in. It would be very helpful if it did. Same goes for other warnings/errors produced by R CMD check. I also tried to narrow it down with tools:checkRd() but as I mentioned earlier, this function does not produce the same output as R CMD check and the same thing happens in the case of the warning above. I ran checkRd() on all 34 .Rd files and did not see the warning above. I'd worry that people might give up and not try and find the source of...

On 12/07/2018 9:46 AM, G?bor Cs?rdi wrote: > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 2:30 PM G?bor Cs?rdi <csardi.gabor at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 2:21 PM Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com> wrote: >>> I think I found the bug. The tools::checkRd function only processes >>> \Sexpr's with "stage=render". I think the author (who might have been >>> me, I forget) assumed that would imply all the earlier stages as well, >>> but apparently it doesn't. >>> >>> So you could use that a...

...like this? >> >> \examples{ >> \Sexpr[stage=install,strip.white=FALSE,results=rd]{pkg:::decorate_code(' >> CODE >> ')} >> } > > Thanks for the reply! Unfortunately it seems that \Sexpr is not allowed inside > \examples, either: > > checkRd: (7) ps_handle.Rd:46-47: Tag \Sexpr is invalid in a \examples block > > G. I think I found the bug. The tools::checkRd function only processes \Sexpr's with "stage=render". I think the author (who might have been me, I forget) assumed that would imply all the earlier stage...

...K., Weidmann J.C., Qiu J., Giraudoux P. 2009 Modelling and spatial discrimination of small mammal assemblages: an example from western Sichuan (China). Ecological Modelling, 220: 1218-1231.} } The Rcmd check gives: * checking R code for possible problems ... OK * checking Rd files ... WARNING checkRd: (7) multignome.Rd:38: Tag \href not recognized I saw there is already a link on the issue http://bugs.r-project.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=14535, but I hardly understand if it is a real bug, if so if it have been fixed, or if I am misusing the tag... Any hint appreciated, Best, Patrick

I'm getting the following form R CMD CHECK mypackage ----------- * checking Rd files ... WARNING Error in Rd[[which]] : subscript out of bounds problem found in ?myfunction.Rd? --------- This is... not the most helpful error. I'd be happy to make a minimal .Rd example file if someone can point me to what a minimal .Rd file has in it. The file is already pretty minimal, so it's

Hi All, Apologies if this is a very naive question. Is there a way to see the particular Rd file being processed right before a warning/error occurs? As far as I can tell, all my .Rd files use have names and titles and they are unique between Rd files (sometimes in a file I use something like \name{foo} \title{Foo}). I seem to be able to convert files to latex using: R CMD Rdconv --type=latex

On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 2:30 PM G?bor Cs?rdi <csardi.gabor at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 2:21 PM Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com> wrote: > > I think I found the bug. The tools::checkRd function only processes > > \Sexpr's with "stage=render". I think the author (who might have been > > me, I forget) assumed that would imply all the earlier stages as well, > > but apparently it doesn't. > > > > So you could use that as a workaround....

I would like to create \examples{} in the manual dynamically, and while it is possible to do this with a \Sexpr at the top level, R CMD check issues a warning for it. (See below.) Is it intentional that \Sexpr is not allowed at the top level? The Rd grammar allows this, but R CMD check does not. Is there any other way to generate/modify the \examples{} section dynamically? Thanks, Gabor In

.... * Rtools44 has experimental support for 64-bit ARM (aarch64) CPUs _via_ the LLVM 17 toolchain using lld, clang/flang-new and libc++. UTILITIES: * R CMD check notes when S4-style exports are used without declaring a strong dependence on package methods. * tools::checkRd() (used by R CMD check) detects more problems with \Sexpr-based dynamic content, including bad nesting of \Sexprs and invalid arguments. * tools::checkRd() now reports Rd titles and section names ending in a period; this is ignored by R CMD check unless environment vari...

.... * Rtools44 has experimental support for 64-bit ARM (aarch64) CPUs _via_ the LLVM 17 toolchain using lld, clang/flang-new and libc++. UTILITIES: * R CMD check notes when S4-style exports are used without declaring a strong dependence on package methods. * tools::checkRd() (used by R CMD check) detects more problems with \Sexpr-based dynamic content, including bad nesting of \Sexprs and invalid arguments. * tools::checkRd() now reports Rd titles and section names ending in a period; this is ignored by R CMD check unless environment vari...

Hello, Here's an example that renders correctly using Rd2txt / Rd2latex / R CMD Rd2pdf, but has problems under Rd2HTML: \name{foo} \title{foo} \section{foo}{ This should be on a separate paragraph This should be on a separate paragraph This should be on a separate paragraph \Sexpr[stage=render,results=rd]{ paste( rep('Sexpr: This should be on a separate

...rare case of user or group names longer than 32 bytes, fixing PR#17871 with thanks to Ivan Krylov. * When using the "internal" timezone datetime code, adding a fraction of a second no longer adds one second, fixing PR#16856 from a patch by Ivan Krylov. * tools::checkRd() no longer produces spurious notes about "unnecessary braces" from multi-line Rd results of \Sexpr macros. -- Peter Dalgaard, Professor, Center for Statistics, Copenhagen Business School Solbjerg Plads 3, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark Phone: (+45)38153501 Office: A 4.23 Email: pd.m...