Skip to content

Conversation

@hadley
Copy link
Member

@hadley hadley commented Jan 7, 2022

This is useful when look at the full results in CI

This is useful when look at the full results in CI
@hadley hadley requested a review from gaborcsardi January 7, 2022 04:58
Copy link
Member

@gaborcsardi gaborcsardi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should we add some optimization to avoid showing the summary twice if there is no other output? I.e. if there are no skips, warnings, errors, etc. at all?

@hadley
Copy link
Member Author

hadley commented Jan 7, 2022

I thought about that but couldn't be bothered since it seems unlikely to come up that much.

@hadley hadley merged commit 9355d8f into main Jan 7, 2022
@hadley hadley deleted the check-tweaks branch January 7, 2022 19:47
@gaborcsardi
Copy link
Member

gaborcsardi commented Jan 7, 2022

It comes up for every clean test run, no?

Not a big deal, just weird to have this duplication.

> library(testthat)
> library(pingr)
>
>  test_check("pingr")
[ FAIL 0 | WARN 0 | SKIP 0 | PASS 21 ]

[ FAIL 0 | WARN 0 | SKIP 0 | PASS 21 ]
>
> proc.time()
   user  system elapsed
  0.297   0.085   3.724

@hadley
Copy link
Member Author

hadley commented Jan 7, 2022

Oh I see what you mean. I guess I was just thinking about the actions, where you only ever look at this display if there are test failures.

@hadley
Copy link
Member Author

hadley commented Jan 7, 2022

I'll fix momentarily (if (self$skips$size() || self$warnings$size() || self$problems$size()))

hadley added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 8, 2022
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.

3 participants