similar to: Inserting and testing revised functions in a package

Hello everyone, I hope this reaches someone at all. It's my first bug report to the R-core, and, apparently, bugzilla is locked from new reports for now. I was using `methods::insertSource` to debug and successfully fix another package, until it suddenly stopped working. I figured out, that it is because I am using it on the same function multiple times within one session. It also produces

Thanks, I will fix this. On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 8:06 AM, Demetrio Rodriguez T. < demetrio.rodriguez.t at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello everyone, > > > I hope this reaches someone at all. It's my first bug report to the R-core, > and, apparently, bugzilla is locked from new reports for now. > > I was using `methods::insertSource` to debug and successfully fix another

trace() seems to be broken in 2.6.1 and R-devel: Try the example from the ?debug man page: > library(methods) > trace("plot", browser, exit=browser, signature = c("track", + "missing")) Error in getFunction(what, where = whereF) : no function "plot" found Okay, it's just an example that doesn't work. Let's try a simpler one,

# Your mailer is set to "none" (default on Windows), # hence we cannot send the bug report directly from R. # Please copy the bug report (after finishing it) to # your favorite email program and send it to # # r-bugs@r-project.org # ###################################################### > x <- rnorm(10) > y <- 1:10 > xyplot(y ~ x) >

I have a function myFunction(beta,x) where beta is a vector of coefficients and x is a data frame (think of it as a matrix). I want to optimize the function myFunction() by ONLY changing beta, i.e. x stays constant, with 4 constraints. I have the following code (with a separate source file for the function): rm(list=ls()) source('mySourceFile')

>>>>> Henrik Bengtsson >>>>> on Thu, 27 Jun 2019 16:00:39 -0700 writes: > Using: > > untrace(methods::conformMethod) > at <- c(12,4,3,2) > str(body(methods::conformMethod)[[at]]) > ## language omittedSig <- omittedSig && (signature[omittedSig] != "missing") > cc <- 0L > trace(methods::conformMethod, tracer =

>>>>> peter dalgaard >>>>> on Fri, 28 Jun 2019 16:20:03 +0200 writes: > > On 28 Jun 2019, at 16:03 , Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote: > > > >>>>>> Henrik Bengtsson > >>>>>> on Thu, 27 Jun 2019 16:00:39 -0700 writes: > > > >> Using: > >> > >>

In 'conformMethod', there is another instance of omittedSig & <something about signature[omittedSig]> . It just affects error message. Original: ? ? if(any(is.na(match(signature[omittedSig], c("ANY", "missing"))))) { ? ? ? ? bad <- omittedSig & is.na(match(signature[omittedSig], c("ANY", "missing"))) After r76756: ? ? if(any(iiN

Hello all, Since I got no answer to my first mail, I suspect I did not formulate my question adequately, so I try again. In R, one can debug or trace a function 'foo' with debug(foo) or trace(foo), respectively. This leads to a special treatment of the function 'foo' until one enter undebug(foo) or untrace(foo). I would like to know if there is a convenient way to know at any

> On 28 Jun 2019, at 16:03 , Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote: > >>>>>> Henrik Bengtsson >>>>>> on Thu, 27 Jun 2019 16:00:39 -0700 writes: > >> Using: >> >> untrace(methods::conformMethod) >> at <- c(12,4,3,2) >> str(body(methods::conformMethod)[[at]]) >> ## language omittedSig

Using: untrace(methods::conformMethod) at <- c(12,4,3,2) str(body(methods::conformMethod)[[at]]) ## language omittedSig <- omittedSig && (signature[omittedSig] != "missing") cc <- 0L trace(methods::conformMethod, tracer = quote({ cc <<- cc + 1L print(cc) if (cc == 31) { ## manually identified untrace(methods::conformMethod)

Dear R-devel, I don't think this is expected : foo <- function() "hello" trace2 <- function(fun) trace(fun, quote(print("!!!"))) base::fun # Object with tracing code, class "functionWithTrace" # Original definition: # function() "hello" # # ## (to see the tracing code, look at body(object)) `untrace()` has the same behavior. This is

>>>>> Martin Maechler >>>>> on Sat, 29 Jun 2019 12:05:49 +0200 writes: >>>>> Martin Maechler >>>>> on Sat, 29 Jun 2019 10:33:10 +0200 writes: >>>>> peter dalgaard >>>>> on Fri, 28 Jun 2019 16:20:03 +0200 writes: >>> > On 28 Jun 2019, at 16:03 , Martin Maechler <maechler at

Hi Tomas, The doc indeed describes `what` as "the name, possibly quote()d, of a function to be traced or untraced". This is a good argument not to change the function and make it behave more like debug. However the doc also tells us "A call to trace allows you to insert debugging code (e.g., a call to browser or recover) at chosen places in any function" and "The trace

>>>>> Martin Maechler >>>>> on Sat, 29 Jun 2019 10:33:10 +0200 writes: >>>>> peter dalgaard >>>>> on Fri, 28 Jun 2019 16:20:03 +0200 writes: >> > On 28 Jun 2019, at 16:03 , Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote: >> > >> >>>>>> Henrik Bengtsson

Please note that this is documented in ?trace. "fun" is matched to what, it is a _name_ of the function to be traced, which is traced in the top-level environment. I don't know why it was designed this way, but it is documented in detail, and hence the expected behavior. Debugging is often, and also in R, implemented in the core. Tracing is implemented on top without specific

Dear all, in order to estimate transition-specific probabilities in a multi-state model i applied the 'probtrans()' function from the 'mstate'-package. Now, i am at loss with the following message (see attached example): Warning message: In probtrans(msf.0, predt = 0) : Negative diagonal elements of (I+dA); the estimate may not be meaningful. I am not very familiar with matrix

I run checks with R-devel rev. 76756 on several of my packages which use S4, with no ill effects. With the risk of not adding much, it seems that Martin's example, which I repeat below, suggests a crossover between several "signatures" involved here - the signature of the generic, the signature of the method (the argument for setMethod()), and the signature of the function object

You can start diagnosing the problem by capturing the matrix that caused eigen() to stop. You can do this in a variety of ways; here is one trace(eigen, quote(lastEigenX <<- x)) After setting the trace, make your offending function call and after the error the global variable 'lastEigenX' will contain the bad matrix. Take the trace off of eigen untrace(eigen) If all goes

Hi, Say I wanted to know what svn revision a given site was using, simply from looking at the site. How could I embed that information into the page (into maybe a html comment or in the page footer)? A switchtower task? Joe