Fix condition expectations in prevision of testthat breaking change

[lionel-]

We are planning a breaking change to the condition expectations in testthat release (see NEWS item in r-lib/testthat#1401). This PR implements a preventive fix that works with and without the breaking change.

There is no hurry to get this fix on CRAN since we are skipping one released version of testthat before going through with the change.

[DanChaltiel]

Hi @lionel-
Thanks for the PR.
Is this a temporary fix or is it a definitive change?
If I understood correctly, expect_warning() will now return the warning itself so multiple piping like in my file will not work right?

crosstable(...) %>%
    expect_warning(class="crosstable_unnamed_anonymous_warning") %>%     
    expect_warning(class="crosstable_unnamed_lambda_warning")

I'm afraid adding braces everywhere will make this rather unreadable:

{ { x=crosstable(..., 
                       .....) } %>%
    expect_warning(class="crosstable_unnamed_anonymous_warning") } %>%     
    expect_warning(class="crosstable_unnamed_lambda_warning")

[lionel-]

Is this a temporary fix or is it a definitive change?

This should be a permanent fix.

If I understood correctly, expect_warning() will now return the warning itself so multiple piping like in my file will not work right?

It should work for the same reason that expect_warning(expect_warning(expr)) works. expect_warning() does not inspect the return value but the side effect of warning. To be sure I just checked with dev testthat which features the breaking change.

[hadley]

We're planning on releasing to CRAN soon, so I'd really appreciate it if you could do a release so we avoid breaking a CRAN check for your package 😄

[DanChaltiel]

@hadley Sorry, I can unfortunately not work on this package currently, so this will have to wait a bit :-(
I will obviously make some changes in the next release.

[hadley]

Ok, you'll likely get an email from CRAN when this goes out.

[DanChaltiel]

Corrected in 713098e.