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

Replace call to boot() from Jaccard() #26

Closed
wleoncio opened this issue Oct 21, 2020 · 2 comments
Closed

Replace call to boot() from Jaccard() #26

wleoncio opened this issue Oct 21, 2020 · 2 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@wleoncio
Copy link
Member

wleoncio commented Oct 21, 2020

DIscBIO contains the boot package as a dependency just for the purpose of using the boot() function inside Jaccard() (see here). If this were to be replaced by an in-house solution, there would be one fewer dependency for DIscBIO (which is currently depending on 21 non-default packages; this generates a NOTE from devtools::check()).

@wleoncio wleoncio added the enhancement New feature or request label Oct 21, 2020
@wleoncio wleoncio added this to the DIscBIO 1.1.0 milestone Oct 21, 2020
@wleoncio wleoncio self-assigned this Oct 21, 2020
wleoncio added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 21, 2020
@wleoncio
Copy link
Member Author

wleoncio commented Nov 5, 2020

Should be simple enough, given that boot::boot just seems to be performing simple bootstrapping. The trickier part might be replicating the summary statistics, but even these are fixed, which makes it easier to code.

FWIW, the boot package's license is "unlimited" (source), so reusing the code itself might be straightforward.

@wleoncio wleoncio removed their assignment Nov 13, 2020
@wleoncio
Copy link
Member Author

Since commit 13455a9 eliminated the need for the readr package, the devtools check no longer issues a "lots of dependencies" note. In this case, it might be better to leave the boot dependency, as the additional code might offset the time saved by having one fewer dependency.

In any case, perhaps a simple copy-pasting of the original code could be used as a test to see if it checks faster than having the extra dependency. In the end, check time is arguably the biggest issue to be tackled here.

@wleoncio wleoncio removed this from the Next release (1.2.0?) milestone Mar 29, 2021
wleoncio added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 5, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant