gitlabr
gitlabr copied to clipboard
Verify {tibble} version because of "name.repair"
I corrected the code with a name.repair to avoid problems with {tibble} 4.0.
There is a need to verify if the modification has some problems with earlier versions of {tibble} or if we need to specify >4.0 in the DESCRIPTION.
As far as I can see, {tibble} is currently on version 3.0.3 - do you mean version 3.0 and not 4.0?
Yes sure. I was a little bit early...
Tried to install {gitlabr} on a fresh server just now. With {tibble} 1.4.2 I get this on loading {gitlabr}:
Error: package or namespace load failed for ‘gitlabr’ in loadNamespace(j <- i[[1L]], c(lib.loc, .libPaths()), versionCheck = vI[[j]]): namespace ‘tibble’ 1.4.2 is already loaded, but >= 2.1.3 is required
after upgrading to {tibble} 2.1.3 I get no error when loading {gitlabr}. The DESCRIPTION for {gitlabr} actually says {tibble} > 1.1 so I guess the {tibble} 2.1.3 requirement comes for one of the other dependencies.
Does this solve the issue here or was there a specific function you'd like to have tested?
Not really. The problem stands there: https://github.com/statnmap/gitlabr/blob/347faf31cc113820b70e03563a4b925975646c40/R/gitlab_api.R#L190
The output of the lapply() get some columns with the same name which is not allowed anymore in tibble(). I thus had to use the name.repair parameter as a quick modification. However, I did not verify if this modification has any repercution on other outputs. I am not sure where these duplicated columns are used. (Don't even remember which ones these were...)
Maybe this is one of the reasons why some unit tests fail when comparing different methods like here: https://github.com/statnmap/gitlabr/issues/14.
A way to explore this, would probably be to change the name.repair method and see if this has some repercutions in the unit tests. A new set of specific unit tests could help too...
Right, I see. I actually tried to search for name_repair on my fork of this repo, but nothing showed up. Not sure why it only shows up under your version of the repo 🤔
I guess this is good now. No report of missing variable as of today.