Skip to content

🛡️ Parity-checks#41

Merged
serkor1 merged 3 commits into
develfrom
parity_checks
Apr 19, 2026
Merged

🛡️ Parity-checks#41
serkor1 merged 3 commits into
develfrom
parity_checks

Conversation

@serkor1
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

@serkor1 serkor1 commented Apr 19, 2026

📚 What?

This PR introduces parity checks in {talib} against upstream TA-Lib and adjusts indicators where the parity fails for misaligned default arguments (these are considered minor changes, and can be a part of this PR). This PR changes the N of MAs from 10 to 30 (except T3 which uses 5), and changes the default MAType for MACDEXT to SMA (from EMA).

The parity-checks are not a part of the unit-tests on CRAN to avoid any issues related to builds, compilers and other exotic errors that may, or may not, be introduced when running such checks on machines you don't have any control over. All checks are done against the latest upstream and requires no snapshots, as it is expected that {talib} will follow upstream closely which is also why the built files are not tracked by Git.

Unit-tests will be generated as the R CMD check starts, and deleted after the checks passes, or fails. The parity-checks will serve as the ultimate truth, and any deviations from it must be assumed to be a downstream bug (unless there is a posted issue upstream).

* Unit-tests now covers parity checks with upstream on CI/CD and local builds
  the snapshots are .gitignore'd and the emitted test-file are .Rbuildignore'd to
  limit the hurdles of CRAN policies and machines. A that passes on CI/CD and locally
  should be enough evidence that parity holds.
@serkor1 serkor1 added the enhancement New feature or request label Apr 19, 2026
Comment thread codegen/parity/parity_gen.c Fixed
Comment thread codegen/parity/parity_gen.c Fixed
@codecov
Copy link
Copy Markdown

codecov Bot commented Apr 19, 2026

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 11.11111% with 8 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 96.27%. Comparing base (7d611f1) to head (64611f0).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on devel.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
R/ta_DEMA.R 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
R/ta_EMA.R 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
R/ta_KAMA.R 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
R/ta_MAMA.R 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
R/ta_T3.R 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
R/ta_TEMA.R 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
R/ta_TRIMA.R 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
R/ta_WMA.R 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##            devel      #41      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   96.32%   96.27%   -0.05%     
==========================================
  Files         272      272              
  Lines       20793    20793              
==========================================
- Hits        20028    20019       -9     
- Misses        765      774       +9     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

* If parity fails, the run fails. End of story.
@serkor1 serkor1 force-pushed the parity_checks branch 2 times, most recently from 1a0efb8 to a8eb08d Compare April 19, 2026 11:49
@serkor1 serkor1 merged commit 3993edf into devel Apr 19, 2026
14 checks passed
@serkor1 serkor1 deleted the parity_checks branch April 19, 2026 12:01
@serkor1 serkor1 mentioned this pull request Apr 25, 2026
serkor1 added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 25, 2026
## 📚 What?

PR #48 introduced R-universe tests which is a more thorough testing scheme than the original `R-CMD-check` - there is no need to have have two workflows that tests the same thing.  PR #41 introduced more thorough parity-checks which also renders the validity-checks obsolete.

This PR introduces the following changes:

* The old R-CMD-check is replaced with R-universe checks
* The old validity checks are removed
* The remote-install run is only triggered on changes to configure files
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants