Closes #469 fix_assert_list_element: consider ... for evaluation of message

[bundfussr]

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 main branch until you have checked off each task.

• Place Closes #<insert_issue_number> into the beginning of your Pull Request Title (Use Edit button in top-right if you need to update)
• Code is formatted according to the tidyverse style guide. Run styler::style_file() to style R and Rmd files
• Updated relevant unit tests or have written new unit tests, which should consider realistic data scenarios and edge cases, e.g. empty datasets, errors, boundary cases etc. - See Unit Test Guide
• If you removed/replaced any function and/or function parameters, did you fully follow the deprecation guidance?
• Update to all relevant roxygen headers and examples, including keywords and families. Refer to the categorization of functions to tag appropriate keyword/family.
• Run devtools::document() so all .Rd files in the man folder and the NAMESPACE file in the project root are updated appropriately
• Address any updates needed for vignettes and/or templates
• Update NEWS.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)
• Build admiral site pkgdown::build_site() and check that all affected examples are displayed correctly and that all new functions occur on the "Reference" page.
• Address or fix all lintr warnings and errors - lintr::lint_package()
• Run R CMD check locally and address all errors and warnings - devtools::check()
• Link the issue in the Development Section on the right hand side.
• Address all merge conflicts and resolve appropriately
• Pat yourself on the back for a job well done! Much love to your accomplishment!

[github-actions]

Package	Line Rate	Health
admiraldev	97%	✔
Summary	97% (1045 / 1079)	✔

[bundfussr]

@manciniedoardo , this one is environment related. So a good preparation for our working group.

[bms63]

So is the traditional way to use ... . I remember there was some discussion during argument renaming days that this was not standard convention??

[bms63]

I feel like it is the standard way but I have never used this before - does it need so much flexibility?

[bms63]

wait - now i am backtracking!

[bms63]

Are we setting up cli_abort correctly? Apologies I am terrible at this stuff but feels a little funky

[ddsjoberg]

When we started, it was suggested not to include an envir argument for simplicity. In the generic checking functions I maintain, I prefer to expose the environment control just in case, for example:

check_class <- function(x,
                        cls,
                        allow_empty = FALSE,
                        message,
                        arg_name = rlang::caller_arg(x),
                        class = "check_class",
                        call = get_cli_abort_call(),
                        envir = rlang::current_env()) {  # ENVIR ARGUMENT IS HERE AND IS PASSED TO cli_abort()
  # if empty, skip test
  if (isTRUE(allow_empty) && rlang::is_empty(x)) {
    return(invisible(x))
  }

  if (!inherits(x, cls)) {
    cli::cli_abort(message, class = c(class, "standalone-checks"), call = call, .envir = envir)
  }
  invisible(x)
}

We could do the same here

[bundfussr]

I think this would work for assert_list_element(). However, if we add the envir argument here, we should add it for all assertions. This would be a lot of work. We would not only need to add the argument but also revise and update the code of the assertions because in some assertions the message text uses objects which are created in the assertion function.
Thus I would not add the envir argument.

[bms63]

okay sounds good to not add