Linter to recommend new expectations to check for absence of exceptions?

[IndrajeetPatil]

{testthat} has recently introduced new expectations that assert the absence of an error, warning, or message.

These expectations are (IMO: r-lib/testthat#1642) far more readable than the previous idiom of setting regexp = NA.

Should we introduce a new linter that recommends using these new expectations?

# actual (forces reader to figure out what the second argument is and what setting it to NA entails)
expect_message({ ... }, NA)
expect_warning({ ... }, NA)
expect_error({ ... }, NA)
expect_condition({ ... }, NA)

# suggested
expect_no_message({ ... })
expect_no_warning({ ... })
expect_no_error({ ... })
expect_no_condition({ ... })

P.S. A fly in the ointment is that the lifecycle for these new expectations is experimental. So maybe we should wait until it's stable?

[AshesITR]

Fine with me. Probably should wait for the lifecycle to upgrade.

[IndrajeetPatil]

In testthat 3.2.0 release, these functions were marked as stable, so we could work on this issue:

[MichaelChirico]

we can do expect_no_linter() to cover these and our expect_no_lint()?

that's very close in name to expect_not_linter(), my first instinct is not to combine them...

[AshesITR]

I was thinking expect_condition_linter() or expect_signal_linter(), but neither of those incorporate expect_lint()...

NB our condition_call_linter() and condition_message_linter().

[AshesITR]

WDYT about expect_no_condition_linter()?

[MichaelChirico]

I think it's good enough. a lint is a "condition", right? 😄

[AshesITR]

SGTM. I'm starting to grasp why Pylint uses numbers for lints 😂

[F-Noelle]

expect_absence_linter, perhaps? given that this is how they seem to be described collectively.

Also expect_no_lint, expect_lint do have checks as the secondary parameter which is also equal to NULL and not NA.

Not saying that this linter shouldn't handle expect_no_lint with the other absence functions, but it is distinct separate logic that needs to be handled as well.