Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Start using testthat 3e #910
Start using testthat 3e #910
Changes from 3 commits
8f5d3a0
e365f17
37ad97f
2b71ca7
24c5ff0
0ec8ba4
8d9b0d6
a54770c
21d64a8
c8e1490
243d03e
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If you use this approach, I think you need
all.names = TRUE
to verify the property implied by the test title.OTOH I'm not sure what "non-hidden" means as I would have expected hidden to imply a variable starting with
.
, but that doesn't appear in the test.Additionally, I'd use
expect_equal()
here becauseexpect_identical()
just implies exact numerical comparisons, which I don't think is important here.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
that's not my reading of the docs (?expect_identical):
i.e., only use expect_equal to ignore numerical differences
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmmm. I guess it missing another sentence that says something like: "Since in most cases tiny numeric differences aren't important, we recommend using
expect_equal()
."There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
🙈 our internal policy encourages
expect_identical()
now and we've basically switched all theexpect_equal()
tests already, except whereignore*=
ortolerance=
are needed. I have come to quite like it TBH. It encourages stronger tests.