Skip to content
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

304 remove .study object #305

Merged
merged 12 commits into from
Nov 7, 2022
Merged

304 remove .study object #305

merged 12 commits into from
Nov 7, 2022

Conversation

BFalquet
Copy link
Contributor

@BFalquet BFalquet commented Nov 2, 2022

#304

close #304

-removes the study object

  • edit vignettes
  • change the name of some argument to reinforce consistency
  • document

thank you for the review

@clarkliming clarkliming self-requested a review November 2, 2022 08:11
@clarkliming
Copy link
Contributor

I believe this really simplifies our development and make the user understand it better. I fully agree that we should do like this. @crazycatandy what do you think?

@BFalquet BFalquet marked this pull request as ready for review November 2, 2022 13:14
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Nov 2, 2022

Unit Tests Summary

  1 files  10 suites   50s ⏱️
39 tests 33 ✔️   6 💤 0
87 runs  65 ✔️ 22 💤 0

Results for commit 21dc3e4.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

@BFalquet BFalquet mentioned this pull request Nov 2, 2022
R/dst01.R Outdated
check_dst01_1_args <- function(reason, status, status_treatment) {
if (!missing(status)) {
stopifnot(status == "EOSSTT" || grepl("^EOP[[:digit:]]{2}STT$", status))
check_dst01_1_args <- function(reason, status_var, status_treatment_var) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

what are these check for? I mean, if we are using the default ones, we are sure about the template used;if we there are arguments to specify these variables, what is the point of checking it again?anyway it is specified by user

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

agreed, i was thinking of removing it when we get rid of the layout but i'll eliminate it now

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

custom checks have been removed

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ok, I think we can keep focused on the removing of study object

Copy link
Contributor

@clarkliming clarkliming left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It looks good to me

@BFalquet BFalquet merged commit eac00be into main Nov 7, 2022
@BFalquet BFalquet deleted the 304-remove-study-object@main branch November 7, 2022 15:03
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

remove .study object
2 participants