Skip to content

Conversation

@IndrajeetPatil
Copy link
Collaborator

Since we rely on >= R 4.0 now.

Since we rely on >= R 4.0 now.
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

This is how benchmark results would change (along with a 95% confidence interval in relative change) if 434cbc5 is merged into main:

  • ✔️cache_applying: 158ms -> 160ms [-3.97%, +6.62%]
  • ✔️cache_recording: 513ms -> 512ms [-1.15%, +0.8%]
  • ✔️without_cache: 1.05s -> 1.05s [-0.73%, +1.63%]

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

@MichaelChirico
Copy link
Contributor

Confirming this is everything re-using the ad hoc linter in r-lib/lintr#2605:

l <- make_linter_from_xpath(lint_message = "", "
  //SYMBOL_SUB[text() = 'stringsAsFactors']
    /parent::expr[not(
      expr/SYMBOL_FUNCTION_CALL[text() = 'expand.grid']
      or ./expr/expr/SYMBOL_FUNCTION_CALL[text() = 'table']
    )]
  ")
lint_package(linters = l())

created = file.info(path_cache)$ctime,
location = path_cache,
activated = cache_is_activated(cache_name),
stringsAsFactors = FALSE
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

IINM this is not WAI anyway?

styler:::styler_df(a = 1:10, b = 11:20, stringsAsFactors=FALSE)
    a  b stringsAsFactors
1   1 11            FALSE
2   2 12            FALSE
3   3 13            FALSE
4   4 14            FALSE
5   5 15            FALSE
6   6 16            FALSE
7   7 17            FALSE
8   8 18            FALSE
9   9 19            FALSE
10 10 20            FALSE

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

That's true!

Copy link
Contributor

@MichaelChirico MichaelChirico left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Feel free to merge, the part about styler_df() can be handled here or in another PR, up to you :)

@IndrajeetPatil IndrajeetPatil removed the request for review from lorenzwalthert June 15, 2024 06:33
@IndrajeetPatil IndrajeetPatil merged commit 7b5327c into main Jun 15, 2024
@lorenzwalthert lorenzwalthert deleted the saf branch June 15, 2024 17:30
@lorenzwalthert lorenzwalthert restored the saf branch June 15, 2024 17:30
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.

4 participants