mark padgham
mark padgham
Hi @mccroweyclinton-EPA , I'm not sure about that, but suspect that you might see more consistent results by running `testthat::test_local()` or `testthat::test_file()` functions, rather than indirectly via `devtools`. Either way,...
> > Happy to help more if you ping directly from your repo. > > [@mpadge](https://github.com/mpadge) I have sent you an invite to be on the team for the repository...
Hi @ScottClaessens, sorry for slow start here. We're trying to find an editor to handle this submission. You'll see progress as soon as that's happened.
@ScottClaessens Sorry about delays in getting back to you here, but can you give us an update of the state of the package? The previous lot of checks showed that...
@ropensci-review-bot check srr
@ropensci-review-bot check package
Thanks @paulgovan for your submission, which definitely seems in scope. Before we proceed, however, a couple of notes which I'll notate to make further discussion easier: - **MP1** I note...
Thanks for the submission @cherylisabella. Can you please edit the initial commit, and revert the initial [section from the template](https://github.com/ropensci/software-review/issues/new?template=A-submit-software-for-review.md) to keep all of the HTML comments, like this: ```...
@ropensci-review-bot check package
@cherylisabella That shows a bit of work for you to address before we proceed. It'll likely help you to use https://github.com/ropensci-review-tools/pkgcheck-action to generate the same `pkgcheck` report in your own...