Error on a NOTE in R CMD Check

[IndrajeetPatil]

Especially to catch the new valid HTML5 checks in R-devel, see:
https://blog.r-project.org/2022/04/08/enhancements-to-html-documentation/

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #987 (235ec49) into main (62238a8) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

❗ Current head 235ec49 differs from pull request most recent head 8f6f2e9. Consider uploading reports for the commit 8f6f2e9 to get more accurate results

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #987   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   90.10%   90.10%           
=======================================
  Files          47       47           
  Lines        2698     2698           
=======================================
  Hits         2431     2431           
  Misses        267      267           

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
R/expr-is.R	89.18% <ø> (ø)

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

[github-actions]

This is how benchmark results would change (along with a 95% confidence interval in relative change) if 235ec49 is merged into main:

•   :ballot_box_with_check:cache_applying: 28.8ms -> 28.7ms [-1.26%, +0.71%]
•   :ballot_box_with_check:cache_recording: 1.34s -> 1.34s [-0.53%, +0.58%]
•   :ballot_box_with_check:without_cache: 3.59s -> 3.58s [-0.63%, +0.21%]

Further explanation regarding interpretation and methodology can be found in the documentation.

[lorenzwalthert]

Interesting 😀. I am not sure I can follow, i.e. why is _R_CHECK_RD_VALIDATE_RD2HTML_ not set anywhere? I.e. I don't understand how this workflow is any different from what we already have in R CMD Check.

[IndrajeetPatil]

It's not different from R CMD Check per se, it's just more specialized for one thing only.

For example, you can already see the same NOTE in R CMD Check, which must have been present for a while but has been completely ignored because the builds don't fail. This won't happen with the HTML-5 workflow.

https://github.com/r-lib/styler/runs/7980143290?check_suite_focus=true#step:6:91

[lorenzwalthert]

Ok I see. So why not fail on note in general? This needs to spin up another r cmd check VM, which costs resources.

[IndrajeetPatil]

@lorenzwalthert Sounds good. Done!

[github-actions]

This is how benchmark results would change (along with a 95% confidence interval in relative change) if eccca3a is merged into main:

•   :ballot_box_with_check:cache_applying: 30.6ms -> 30.7ms [-0.83%, +1.45%]
•   :ballot_box_with_check:cache_recording: 1.41s -> 1.41s [-1.39%, +0.76%]
•   :ballot_box_with_check:without_cache: 3.72s -> 3.69s [-1.92%, +0.39%]

Further explanation regarding interpretation and methodology can be found in the documentation.

[IndrajeetPatil]

Since we don't test on R 3.4 anymore.

[lorenzwalthert]

Looks good.