You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I think the recent changes for checking return sections in Rd files might be triggering a false positive. Specifically I'm thinking of man pages that document the package itself, which I wouldn't expect to have a return section.
These are described in r-pkgs.org and I have a specific example in Rarr which is now triggering a warning in BiocCheck when it did not in the past.
If you agree it's a false positive, I wonder if you can use BiocCheck:::docType(rd) == "package" somewhere to test for this scenario.
Cheers,
Mike
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi @LiNk-NY
I think the recent changes for checking return sections in Rd files might be triggering a false positive. Specifically I'm thinking of man pages that document the package itself, which I wouldn't expect to have a return section.
These are described in r-pkgs.org and I have a specific example in Rarr which is now triggering a warning in BiocCheck when it did not in the past.
If you agree it's a false positive, I wonder if you can use
BiocCheck:::docType(rd) == "package"
somewhere to test for this scenario.Cheers,
Mike
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: