Add Shield around parameters in Rcpp::interfaces (fixes #712)

[jjallaire]

No description provided.

[eddelbuettel]

Hah. Saves me some testing and means I can go straight to rev.dep testing this :)

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #713 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #713   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   89.57%   89.57%           
=======================================
  Files          66       66           
  Lines        3588     3588           
=======================================
  Hits         3214     3214           
  Misses        374      374

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/attributes.cpp	98.4% <ø> (ø)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update c75bbdd...e7b1698. Read the comment docs.

[eddelbuettel]

We could make this Rcpp::Shield for consistency with Rcpp::wrap but I see other identifiers without the namespace qualifier.

[jjallaire]

Yeah I originally had it with the qualifier then noticed the same thing you did (already have unqualified references elsewhere so why press the issue here).

…

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel ***@***.*** > wrote: ***@***.**** commented on this pull request. ------------------------------ In src/attributes.cpp <#713 (comment)>: > @@ -2172,7 +2172,7 @@ namespace attributes { const std::vector<Argument>& args = function.arguments(); for (std::size_t i = 0; i<args.size(); i++) { - ostr() << "Rcpp::wrap(" << args[i].name() << ")"; + ostr() << "Shield<SEXP>(Rcpp::wrap(" << args[i].name() << "))"; We could make this Rcpp::Shield for consistency with Rcpp::wrap but I see other identifiers without the namespace qualifier. — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#713 (review)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAGXx2s1DCY28uhC8UzvdwOQZANaHUm5ks5sEDEwgaJpZM4N59_u> .

[eddelbuettel]

Looks good, and have a rev.dep run chugging along. May as well merge now.

[coatless]

Would it be worth it to prefix with Rcpp:: where applicable to avoid any namespace headaches?

[kevinushey]

The fact that we're injecting a using namespace Rcpp; statement into another package's namespace within a header file is a little bit wonky, so it might be worth doing.

[jjallaire]

I don't recall why that using namespace Rcpp is there but I don't think I would have done it capriciously so I wouldn't just rip it out and hope for the best. It doesn't pollute the namespace of users of the package, just the implementation namespace of the package (which is by definition using the Rcpp namespace).

…

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 10:07 PM, Kevin Ushey ***@***.***> wrote: The fact that we're injecting a using namespace Rcpp; statement into another package's namespace within a header file is a little bit wonky, so it might be worth doing. — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#713 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAGXx9bdSqBY9gXDCn68cPJ9OdOCjEVEks5sEJHugaJpZM4N59_u> .

[eddelbuettel]

Also, aren't we talking RcppExports.cpp here -- a single compilation unit and not included into other files.

[kevinushey]

Good point :) Okay, let's not touch anything there.

[krlmlr]

Thanks for the very quick fix!

[eddelbuettel]

Thanks to you for the heads-up. I also ran a full rev.dep check yesterday, and we're good. I did sixteen out of 1050 or so packages failing, and about eight looked like possible dplyr interactions I had not seen (and do no worry about for Rcpp as they also fail at CRAN for the released version -- hence unlikely to be us).
See RcppCore/rcpp-logs@1f85c64

[krlmlr]

Thanks. Most of the eight new failures look familiar, I hope the upcoming dplyr point release will fix them.