Unexpected behavior of opts

[tdeenes]

When calling opts(xs = NULL) , the function returns an options_list, which means the default values (passed as default= during declaration) are returned.
E.g.:

define_option(option = "test", default = "original_value")
stopifnot(identical(opts()$test, "original_value")

When calling opts(sx = "test"), the current (evaluated) value(s) of the xs option(s) are returned. This behavior leads to confusion when one updates the value of an option:

opt_set("test", "new_value")
## opts.NULL() returns the value at declaration
stopifnot(identical(opts()$test, "original_value"))
## opts.character returns the current value
stopifnot(identical(opts("test")$test, "new_value"))

I would argue opts(xs = NULL) should also return the current evaluated values, but for backward compatibility, we can leave it as it is and define a new method for logical xs.

#' @param xs a boolean flag (`TRUE` = all, `FALSE` = none) or a named logical vector indicating which options shall be evaluated instead of returning its default value
#' @export
opts.logical <- function(xs, env = parent.frame()) {
  env <- get_options_env(as_env(env), inherits = TRUE)
  out <- as_options_list(env)
  if (length(xs) == 0L) return(out)
  is_named <- list_is_all_named(xs)
  stopifnot(
    "'xs' must be named if not a single boolean value" = is_named ||
      length(xs) == 1L
  )
  if (any(xs)) {
    out[xs] <- lapply(names(out)[xs], opt, env = env)
  }
  out
}

I also noticed that opts is a generic without ... in its signature (hence, the methods miss ellipses, too). Is this intentional?

[dgkf]

Thanks for reporting this! Yes, this is very unintuitive. I agree, the NULL value should be equivalent to passing all the names of the defined options. I consider this a bug.

but for backward compatibility

Since the package hasn't yet hit v1.0.0, I'm partial to allowing breaking changes if it helps simplify the interface.

I also noticed that opts is a generic without ... in its signature (hence, the methods miss ellipses, too). Is this intentional?

Not intentional, and is a good practice I should adopt here. I didn't really imagine that other methods would need to be defined, but I don't feel the need to close any doors on anyone that finds some clever use for other methods.

[tdeenes]

Let me know if I can help with any of these issues.