similar to: checkRd freezes while parsing erroneous preprocessor macros

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

Hi, I'm trying to R CMD check a package, however I have hit a snag. There seems to be a problem with the creation of the /html files (the only file that's constructed here is the 00Index.html). I've tested each of the .Rd files independently with R CMD Rdconv, they all happily create html files without complaint. R CMD check <package> gives the no warnings. I'm therefore

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(celfiles, threshold = 350, satLim = 10000) > Functions with

I'm encountering problems when making lazy-loadable databases of the output from 'parse_Rd'. The lazy-load database is of seemingly limitless size when I try to reload it... Admittedly I am using functions that I'm not really supposed to use, which is why this isn't a bug report, but there does seem to be something strange going on; my code is very similar to code that lives

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

Hi, I came across the following warning in R CMD check (it only occurred on Windows): The \usage entries for S3 methods should use the \method markup and not > their full name. > See the chapter 'Writing R documentation files' in manual 'Writing R > Extensions'. The package I'm looking at is one that I did not write which has 34 .Rd files. This warning does not

Hi all, I am trying to use \Sexpr{} within \examples{} in the manual, and it all works fine, except that I get an error and then a NOTE from R CMD check when it checks for long lines in the manual. The long line check calls `Rd2txt` with fragment = TRUE, because it only checks the \usage{} and \examples{} sections, but fragment = TRUE does not evaluate \Sexpr{}, and then an unevaluated \Sexpr{}

On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 12:23 PM Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com> wrote: > > On 12/07/2018 6:33 AM, G?bor Cs?rdi wrote: > > 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

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

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

Hi, I'm trying to build a modified version of the package RSvgDevice, without warnings. I'm having troubles with the description file. Here's the logs : * checking Rd files ... WARNING prepare_Rd: RSvgDevice.Rd:1: All text must be in a section But the RSvgDevice.Rd file seems OKto me, what am I missing ? Thanks for your help, Matthieu Decorde -- Matthieu Decorde,

Hi, I have a trouble trying to use \href in a rd doc. See example below: \references{ \href{http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2702787/}{Vaniscotte A., Pleydell D., Raoul F., Quere J.P., Coeurdassier M., Delattre P., Li T., Qian W., Takahashi K., Weidmann J.C., Qiu J., Giraudoux P. 2009 Modelling and spatial discrimination of small mammal assemblages: an example from western

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

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

Dear useRs, I am trying to build my package (nonpareff) which deals with some models of data envelopment analysis. The building worked well, but checking complains when it tests examples. Zipped nonparaeff.Rcheck is attached. Following is the log. --------------------------------------------- arecibo:tmp arecibo$ R CMD build nonparaeff/ * checking for file 'nonparaeff/DESCRIPTION' ...

Dear list, I have been checking my package ('analogue') using R2.13-0-alpha (details of exact svn version appended below) and the R CMD check procedure is generating an error rebuilding a vignette in the package, which raises a NOTE in the check. The log printed to screen during check shows: .... * checking re-building of vignettes ... NOTE Error in re-building vignettes: ... Error in

[This email is either empty or too large to be displayed at this time]

Hi, I have spent a few hours on the R-exts manual and the documentation of parse_Rd() (as well as the PDF document in the references), but I still have not figured out what results=rd means. I thought I could use an R code fragment to create an Rd fragment dynamically. Here is an example, in which I was expected the output to be a describe list <DL> in HTML, but it turns out not to be true.