-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 66
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
Closes #2126 unify_joined: update derive_vars_joined(), derive_var_joined_exist_flag(), filter_joined() #2163
Conversation
… derive_var_joined_exist_flag()
…oined_exist_flag()
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.
small documentation stuff
#' | ||
#' 1. The joined dataset is restricted by the `filter_join` condition. | ||
#' | ||
#' @keywords internal |
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.
#' @keywords internal | |
#' @keywords internal | |
#' @export |
Although it will only be used internally, are we not exporting this function at all?
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.
I think if we export it, it should be included on the "Reference" page, i.e., it should not be internal.
Do you think it users would like to use it?
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.
I doubt our users would use it, but it feels like it has similar "use" as assert_terms()
and assert_valid_queries()
which are both exported, more for a consistency thing
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.
Yes, but it seems that we want to change this (see #2085 (reply in thread)).
@bms63 , what do you think?
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.
Hey @bundfussr - feel free to take or not take any of my suggestions or musings. This one was a bit of epic review!! I think we are good to go once you look through my suggestions.
Thank you for your Pull Request! We have developed this task checklist from the Development Process Guide to help with the final steps of the process. Completing the below tasks helps to ensure our reviewers can maximize their time on your code as well as making sure the admiral codebase remains robust and consistent.
Please check off each taskbox as an acknowledgment that you completed the task or check off that it is not relevant to your Pull Request. This checklist is part of the Github Action workflows and the Pull Request will not be merged into the
devel
branch until you have checked off each task.styler::style_file()
to style R and Rmd filesdevtools::document()
so all.Rd
files in theman
folder and theNAMESPACE
file in the project root are updated appropriatelyNEWS.md
under the header# admiral (development version)
if the changes pertain to a user-facing function (i.e. it has an@export
tag) or documentation aimed at users (rather than developers)pkgdown::build_site()
and check that all affected examples are displayed correctly and that all new functions occur on the "Reference" page.lintr::lint_package()
R CMD check
locally and address all errors and warnings -devtools::check()