Regenerate r doc and avoid R CMD check error #2553
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…due to noncomplete internal doc. Also, then simply regenerating docs.
tomasatdatabricks
approved these changes
Mar 17, 2020
avflor
pushed a commit
to avflor/mlflow
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 22, 2020
* making roxygen comment a normal comment to avoid R CMD check failure due to noncomplete internal doc. Also, then simply regenerating docs. * add missing namespace prefix
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What changes are proposed in this pull request?
Regenerate R doc according to CONTRIBUTING.md. Otherwise, new PRs that regenerate R documentation will fail because the current HEAD state is inconsistent. One roxygen comment to document internal function was turned into a normal comment to avoid R CMD check error due to incompleteness.
How is this patch tested?
None.
Release Notes
Is this a user-facing change?
(Details in 1-2 sentences. You can just refer to another PR with a description if this PR is part of a larger change.)
What component(s) does this PR affect?
How should the PR be classified in the release notes? Choose one:
rn/breaking-change- The PR will be mentioned in the "Breaking Changes" sectionrn/none- No description will be included. The PR will be mentioned only by the PR number in the "Small Bugfixes and Documentation Updates" sectionrn/feature- A new user-facing feature worth mentioning in the release notesrn/bug-fix- A user-facing bug fix worth mentioning in the release notesrn/documentation- A user-facing documentation change worth mentioning in the release notes