Skip to content

Bumps {rmarkdown} minimal version #1247

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

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Jun 26, 2024
Merged

Bumps {rmarkdown} minimal version #1247

merged 8 commits into from
Jun 26, 2024

Conversation

averissimo
Copy link
Contributor

Pull Request

Part of https://github.com/insightsengineering/coredev-tasks/issues/546

Necessary bump to overcome a lack of binary on ppm snapshots that causes an error on minimum strategies for scheduled workflows.

Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented May 16, 2024

CLA Assistant Lite bot ✅ All contributors have signed the CLA

@averissimo
Copy link
Contributor Author

I have read the CLA Document and I hereby sign the CLA

@averissimo averissimo marked this pull request as ready for review May 22, 2024 22:19
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented May 22, 2024

Unit Tests Summary

    1 files     83 suites   1m 10s ⏱️
  838 tests   826 ✅  12 💤 0 ❌
1 803 runs  1 130 ✅ 673 💤 0 ❌

Results for commit 05da0f9.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented May 22, 2024

badge

Code Coverage Summary

Filename                                   Stmts    Miss  Cover    Missing
---------------------------------------  -------  ------  -------  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R/abnormal_by_baseline.R                      65       0  100.00%
R/abnormal_by_marked.R                        55       5  90.91%   78-82
R/abnormal_by_worst_grade_worsen.R           116       3  97.41%   242-244
R/abnormal_by_worst_grade.R                   60       0  100.00%
R/abnormal.R                                  43       0  100.00%
R/analyze_variables.R                        162       3  98.15%   488, 512, 628
R/analyze_vars_in_cols.R                     176      33  81.25%   179, 202-207, 222, 236-237, 245-253, 259-265, 344-350
R/bland_altman.R                              92       1  98.91%   43
R/combination_function.R                       9       0  100.00%
R/compare_variables.R                         84       5  94.05%   130-134, 246, 305
R/control_incidence_rate.R                    10       0  100.00%
R/control_logistic.R                           7       0  100.00%
R/control_step.R                              23       1  95.65%   58
R/control_survival.R                          15       0  100.00%
R/count_cumulative.R                          50       1  98.00%   67
R/count_missed_doses.R                        34       0  100.00%
R/count_occurrences_by_grade.R               113       5  95.58%   101, 151-153, 156
R/count_occurrences.R                        115       1  99.13%   108
R/count_patients_events_in_cols.R             67       1  98.51%   53
R/count_patients_with_event.R                 47       0  100.00%
R/count_patients_with_flags.R                 58       4  93.10%   56-57, 62-63
R/count_values.R                              27       0  100.00%
R/cox_regression_inter.R                     154       0  100.00%
R/cox_regression.R                           161       0  100.00%
R/coxph.R                                    167       7  95.81%   191-195, 238, 253, 261, 267-268
R/d_pkparam.R                                406       0  100.00%
R/decorate_grob.R                            113       0  100.00%
R/desctools_binom_diff.R                     621      64  89.69%   53, 88-89, 125-126, 129, 199, 223-232, 264, 266, 286, 290, 294, 298, 353, 356, 359, 362, 422, 430, 439, 444-447, 454, 457, 466, 469, 516-517, 519-520, 522-523, 525-526, 593, 604-616, 620, 663, 676, 680
R/df_explicit_na.R                            30       0  100.00%
R/estimate_multinomial_rsp.R                  50       1  98.00%   63
R/estimate_proportion.R                      205      12  94.15%   78-85, 89, 94, 315, 481, 587
R/fit_rsp_step.R                              36       0  100.00%
R/fit_survival_step.R                         36       0  100.00%
R/formatting_functions.R                     183       2  98.91%   143, 278
R/g_forest.R                                 585      60  89.74%   241, 253-256, 261-262, 276, 278, 288-291, 336-339, 346, 415, 502, 515, 519-520, 525-526, 539, 555, 602, 633, 708, 717, 723, 742, 797-817, 820, 831, 850, 905, 908, 1043-1048
R/g_ipp.R                                    133       0  100.00%
R/g_km.R                                     350      57  83.71%   286-289, 308-310, 364-367, 401, 429, 433-476, 483-487
R/g_lineplot.R                               238      28  88.24%   183, 196, 232, 272, 353-360, 383-384, 395-405, 497, 503, 505
R/g_step.R                                    68       1  98.53%   109
R/g_waterfall.R                               47       0  100.00%
R/h_adsl_adlb_merge_using_worst_flag.R        73       0  100.00%
R/h_biomarkers_subgroups.R                    45       0  100.00%
R/h_cox_regression.R                         110       0  100.00%
R/h_km.R                                     509      41  91.94%   137, 189-194, 287, 378, 380-381, 392-394, 413, 420-421, 423-425, 433-435, 460, 465-468, 651-654, 1108-1119
R/h_logistic_regression.R                    468       3  99.36%   203-204, 273
R/h_map_for_count_abnormal.R                  54       0  100.00%
R/h_pkparam_sort.R                            15       0  100.00%
R/h_response_biomarkers_subgroups.R           90      12  86.67%   50-55, 107-112
R/h_response_subgroups.R                     178      18  89.89%   257-270, 329-334
R/h_stack_by_baskets.R                        64       1  98.44%   89
R/h_step.R                                   180       0  100.00%
R/h_survival_biomarkers_subgroups.R           88       6  93.18%   111-116
R/h_survival_duration_subgroups.R            207      18  91.30%   259-271, 336-341
R/imputation_rule.R                           17       2  88.24%   54-55
R/incidence_rate.R                            96       7  92.71%   44-51
R/logistic_regression.R                      102       0  100.00%
R/missing_data.R                              21       3  85.71%   32, 66, 76
R/odds_ratio.R                               109       0  100.00%
R/prop_diff_test.R                            91       0  100.00%
R/prop_diff.R                                265      16  93.96%   62-65, 97, 282-289, 432, 492, 597
R/prune_occurrences.R                         57      10  82.46%   138-142, 188-192
R/response_biomarkers_subgroups.R             68       6  91.18%   189-194
R/response_subgroups.R                       192      10  94.79%   95-100, 276, 324-326
R/riskdiff.R                                  59       7  88.14%   102-105, 114, 124-125
R/rtables_access.R                            38       4  89.47%   159-162
R/score_occurrences.R                         20       1  95.00%   124
R/split_cols_by_groups.R                      49       0  100.00%
R/stat.R                                      59       3  94.92%   73-74, 129
R/summarize_ancova.R                         106       2  98.11%   174, 179
R/summarize_change.R                          30       0  100.00%
R/summarize_colvars.R                         10       0  100.00%
R/summarize_coxreg.R                         172       2  98.84%   203, 430
R/summarize_glm_count.R                      195      27  86.15%   206, 224-256, 301-302
R/summarize_num_patients.R                    93       5  94.62%   108-110, 244-245
R/summarize_patients_exposure_in_cols.R       96       1  98.96%   42
R/survival_biomarkers_subgroups.R             78       6  92.31%   113-118
R/survival_coxph_pairwise.R                   79      11  86.08%   45-46, 58-66
R/survival_duration_subgroups.R              197       6  96.95%   119-124
R/survival_time.R                             79       0  100.00%
R/survival_timepoint.R                       113       7  93.81%   120-126
R/utils_checkmate.R                           68       0  100.00%
R/utils_default_stats_formats_labels.R       116       1  99.14%   72
R/utils_factor.R                             109       2  98.17%   84, 302
R/utils_ggplot.R                             110       0  100.00%
R/utils_grid.R                               126       5  96.03%   164, 279-286
R/utils_rtables.R                            100       9  91.00%   39, 46, 51, 58-62, 403-404
R/utils_split_funs.R                          52       2  96.15%   82, 94
R/utils.R                                    141       7  95.04%   118, 121, 124, 128, 137-138, 332
TOTAL                                      10405     556  94.66%

Diff against main

Filename      Stmts    Miss  Cover
----------  -------  ------  --------
TOTAL             0       0  +100.00%

Results for commit: 05da0f9

Minimum allowed coverage is 80%

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results

@averissimo averissimo marked this pull request as draft May 23, 2024 04:14
@averissimo
Copy link
Contributor Author

lme4 (second level dependency) fails to build as the version it requires is more recent than the first-level dependency

Unfortunatelly, it's building from source as of now, so there's no way to avoid this problem

car_3.1-2 (2023-03-30)
| lme4_1.1-32 (2023-03-14)

This issue needs further research.

@averissimo
Copy link
Contributor Author

Failure in min_isolated (see below) and release (expected until {formatters} is released)

Suggested action: Let's merge this after the release (#1253) with min_isolated failing.

Context:

The reason for that failure is related to the old release date of {car} which predates any of the "buildable" {lme4} versions.

In other words, when that strategy tries to install all dependencies of {car} using a snapshot of its release date, it will always fail.

Other than adding a lot of customization to {verdepcheck} there is no way of solving this.

I suggest that we mark this failure as "acceptable" and wait for a new release of {car} @pawelru

this uses the following PRs in other repos:
- insightsengineering/verdepcheck#49
- insightsengineering/r-verdepcheck-action#20
- insightsengineering/r.pkg.template#244

---------

Signed-off-by: Pawel Rucki <12943682+pawelru@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: André Veríssimo <211358+averissimo@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: André Veríssimo <211358+averissimo@users.noreply.github.com>
@averissimo averissimo marked this pull request as ready for review June 26, 2024 12:31
@averissimo
Copy link
Contributor Author

averissimo commented Jun 26, 2024

Scheduled action is green for this branch:

Scheduled 🕰️

Copy link
Contributor

@pawelru pawelru left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍 thanks!

@averissimo averissimo merged commit aa39178 into main Jun 26, 2024
63 checks passed
@averissimo averissimo deleted the 546-fix-verdepcheck@main branch June 26, 2024 13:48
@github-actions github-actions bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Jun 26, 2024
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants