Fix Rcpp:::test or remove it

[romainfrancois]

in #48 @eddelbuettel claims that :

... the undocumented Rcpp:::test() [ seems broken right now even with Sys.setenv("RunAllRcppTests"="yes") set ]

So we should either fix it or remove it.

[romainfrancois]

Anyone using it ? If not I'll just remove it.

[eddelbuettel]

Let me repeat from #48 (comment) as this is still unanswered:

Unit tests, as we once set them up, run

• during R CMD check via tests/
• during R CMD build via vignettes
• via standard RUnit interfaces including from inst/tests/ in the sources
• from the installed package via the undocumented Rcpp:::test() [ seems broken right now even with Sys.setenv("RunAllRcppTests"="yes") set ]
• possibly other ways I have forgotten

Having Rcpp:::test() is potentially a good thing as it separates us from the actual testing framework. This would be a nice-to-have as I think the direct interface from RUnit is broken too.

So I'd be in favour if keeping/fixing it. Feel free to stick a warning() and return() at the top if the current state of borkedness bothers you.

[romainfrancois]

So when something is unanswered, you just duplicate it somewhere.

You seem to be on top of this. This is yours too.

[eddelbuettel]

When I ask you a question, I usually do that because I like an answer from you. Is that so hard?

[romainfrancois]

How about more waiting and less being insulting ?

[eddelbuettel]

Too cute.

I asked the question, and you moved on to another issue and opened another issue ticket.

So where was I supposed to learn that you'd eventually grace me with an answer?

[romainfrancois]

Don't hold your breath, with that kind of attitude you're not likely to get an answer from me.

Vignettes are not the place to have unit test results. You disagree. Fine, we'll keep it. It just adds to the confusing amount of documentation we have.

I opened another issue because these were two different things:

• the nuisance of having a vignette that runs for ages when it is actually useless
• the Rcpp:::test that is a phantom that I don't think anybody is using. Since it is something internal, if we are not using it, we don't need it. If we don't need it, then we should remove it.

Two different problems, two different issues. So that we can close them individually.

Having too many ways to do the same thing is not necessarily a good thing. Your question clearly demonstrate that we have too many ways to run unit tests.

[eddelbuettel]

We (as in you and me) once considered it to be a good thing to have multiple venues to trigger tests.

[eddelbuettel]

Done in e98e98a