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

improve methods for specifying input and output objects #189

Closed
achubaty opened this Issue Jun 3, 2015 · 2 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@achubaty
Contributor

achubaty commented Jun 3, 2015

make defineInput and defineOutput analogous to defineParam

  • shouldn't require rbind [not sure how to get around this. won't implement.]
  • handle NA values without needed to be explicit about type/class (with PR#310)
  • allow reading from .csv #194 [won't implement right away]
  • allow reading from yaml #144 [won't implement right away]
  • add text descriptions of inputs/outputs #214 (with PR#310)
@eliotmcintire

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

eliotmcintire commented Sep 29, 2016

After @YongLuo007 pull request #305 , we discussed further.

  • We would like to make the fn names more precise:
    • Inputs is not actually inputs, but an expectation of inputs. So function name should be:
      expectsInput( )
    • Outputs is not an expectation nor a set of objects, but a description of what is created, so function name should be different and should be:
      createsOutput( )
  • Both require desc argument as per #214
  • Define both functions with ... so that user can add other columns
  • Finally, use missing() instead of multiple signatures.

achubaty added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 4, 2016

achubaty added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 4, 2016

achubaty added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 4, 2016

@achubaty

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

achubaty commented Oct 4, 2016

closing, but note that the linked issues remain open.

@achubaty achubaty closed this Oct 4, 2016

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment