fix minor typos in READMEs

[jameslamb]

I learned about RGF this morning and was poking around the documentation. Please consider this PR to fix minor typos.

[mlampros]

@jameslamb,

the first typo is in the R package, so thanks (I recently added the RGF R package in the RGF-team repository). If I may ask, in which OS did you install the RGF R package?

[jameslamb]

@mlampros I haven't actually installed it yet, was just reading through doc.

I am going to try installing on MacOS later today.

[jameslamb]

Do you have an open issues you want addressed in the R package? I don't see any here but would be happy to help!

FYI I found this project from @StrikerRUS 's profile

[StrikerRUS]

Happy to see you here, James! And thank you for the fixing typos.

Will merge this PR right after #238 (I like green ticks of CI checks 😄 ). BTW, that PR is a hotfix for the R-package test. Seems that there are many issues with default libcurl at Travis which is used behind the R CMD check --as-cran command.

Since we've started to talk about the R-package, may I ask you guys to increase the coverage of the R code?

[mlampros]

@jameslamb the RGF R package was initially hosted in my account. In the next version of RGF, which I'll submit probably this or next week, the repo will be archived and the past issues as well. The only open issue currently is the fact that the RGF R package can be run on windows only from within the command line and not from an R gui (such as Rstudio). I'll have to open an issue in this repository with a feature request or help needed badge, once I submit the new version to CRAN. I found that the installation on Windows was somehow cumbersome that's why I also created a singularity image.

[StrikerRUS]

@jameslamb Please rebase to master to pass CI check.

[jameslamb]

rebased and pushed! should build now

[jameslamb]

@StrikerRUS to answer your question...yep I can try to improve the coverage! Will try to get a build going on my Mac, then I'll go from there. 73% is a pretty good start!

[StrikerRUS]

@jameslamb Thank you very much!

[mlampros]

@jameslamb, @StrikerRUS there are actually 3 files in the RGF R package. The package.R file is used mainly to load the python packages (based on the reticulate package), so the coverage can not be improved. The zzz.R has already 100% coverage and the utils.R has 82.7 % coverage. In the utils.R file I've added two new methods in the last version that should be tested and two more cases is in the mat_2scipy_sparse method.

[jameslamb]

@mlampros I noticed that the coverage I got on utils.R locally was less (the 73% mentioned by @StrikerRUS )

What is the purpose of these guards against testing:

skip_test_if_no_module <- function(MODULE) {

  if (length(MODULE) == 1) {

    module_exists <- reticulate::py_module_available(MODULE)}

  else {

    module_exists <- sum(as.vector(sapply(MODULE, function(x) reticulate::py_module_available(x)))) == length(MODULE)
  }

  if (!module_exists) {

    testthat::skip(paste0(MODULE, " is not available for testthat-testing"))
  }
}

^ I suspect that some tests were not getting run on my machine because I didn't correctly install the Python package. Shouldn't that just make them break?

[StrikerRUS]

@jameslamb Approximately 17%? Then yes, you have broken package. I had the same problem when tried to create test environment at Travis. #230 (comment)

I've already asked about these stubs #208 (comment)...

[mlampros]

@jameslamb once you install the RGF R package, I would suggest to use the covr package and especially the covr::package_coverage() to come to the current package coverage.

The skip_test_if_no_module function is necessary so that the package passes the CRAN tests. An explanation can be found in the documentation of the reticulate package