Skip to content
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

Prepare CRAN submission #357

Merged
merged 11 commits into from
Jan 20, 2025
Merged

Prepare CRAN submission #357

merged 11 commits into from
Jan 20, 2025

Conversation

strengejacke
Copy link
Member

@strengejacke strengejacke commented Jan 19, 2025

@DominiqueMakowski I think we're set for version 0.9.0. WDYT? Are there any urgent issues that need to be fixed before we push a new release on CRAN?

We now default to {marginaleffects}, contrasts were updated, so column names and style is like that for {emmeans}, all relevant stuff should work fine.

@DominiqueMakowski
Copy link
Member

@DominiqueMakowski
Copy link
Member

DominiqueMakowski commented Jan 19, 2025

Maybe these two are low-hanging fruits:

This one would be really nice, because currently we have done the switch to marginaleffects as a default backend but without fully supporting it (as in having an in-house postprocessing) in easystats/parameters so it feels a bit not-robust as we fully depend on their tidy() method

@strengejacke
Copy link
Member Author

easystats/parameters#1063 would be really nice, because currently we have done the switch to marginaleffects as a default backend but without fully supporting it (as in having an in-house postprocessing) in easystats/parameters so it feels a bit not-robust as we fully depend on their tidy() method

No, we fully support Bayesian models. For Bayesian models, we now call describe_posterior(), too. We could do this for the parameters package as well, but that doesn't affect modelbased.

@strengejacke
Copy link
Member Author

For #288, we have to dig a bit more into the format() method. Currently, we have format.estimate_predicted <- format.estimate_contrasts, but maybe we need a separate method here that does some formatting.

@DominiqueMakowski
Copy link
Member

DominiqueMakowski commented Jan 19, 2025

can't we just like add the following in the format?

x <- x[!duplicated(as.list(x))]

or

x <- x[names(x)[!duplicated(names(x)]]

@strengejacke
Copy link
Member Author

Let's wait for #359, which fixes two issues and a bug with ordinal frequentist models we haven't discovered yet.

@strengejacke
Copy link
Member Author

Ok, should be good now.

@strengejacke
Copy link
Member Author

Half of the package size is the animated gif in the readme 😆

@DominiqueMakowski
Copy link
Member

Could prolly be removed tbf 🤷

@DominiqueMakowski
Copy link
Member

Seem to pass

@strengejacke
Copy link
Member Author

Ok, feel free to submit (from this PR)

@strengejacke
Copy link
Member Author

(I don't want to update all snapshots, so we can ignore this one failing snapshot test for now, since it will resolve with the next marginaleffects update).

@DominiqueMakowski
Copy link
Member

Their linux system is too slow -_-

Debian: https://win-builder.r-project.org/incoming_pretest/modelbased_0.9.0_20250119_211448/Debian/00check.log
Status: 1 NOTE

Last released version's CRAN status: OK: 13
See: https://cran.r-project.org/web/checks/check_results_modelbased.html

CRAN Web: https://cran.r-project.org/package=modelbased

Please fix all problems and resubmit a fixed version via the webform.
If you are not sure how to fix the problems shown, please ask for help on the R-package-devel mailing list:
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
If you are fairly certain the rejection is a false positive, please reply-all to this message and explain.

More details are given in the directory:
https://win-builder.r-project.org/incoming_pretest/modelbased_0.9.0_20250119_211448/
The files will be removed after roughly 7 days.

*** Strong rev. depends ***: easystats see

Best regards,
CRAN teams' auto-check service
Flavor: r-devel-windows-x86_64
Check: *, Result: OK

Flavor: r-devel-linux-x86_64-debian-gcc
Check: examples, Result: NOTE
Examples with CPU (user + system) or elapsed time > 5s
user system elapsed
visualisation_recipe.estimate_predicted 15.793 0.323 3.306
estimate_slopes 14.727 0.537 1.602
estimate_means 9.673 0.336 1.266
get_emmeans 7.771 0.164 1.439
Examples with CPU time > 2.5 times elapsed time
user system elapsed ratio
estimate_slopes 14.727 0.537 1.602 9.528
estimate_means 9.673 0.336 1.266 7.906
get_emmeans 7.771 0.164 1.439 5.514
visualisation_recipe.estimate_predicted 15.793 0.323 3.306 4.875

@strengejacke
Copy link
Member Author

I had the same today with ggeffects. Let's see whether we can skip some tests on CRAN in general, or for Linus specifically.

@strengejacke
Copy link
Member Author

Ok, maybe try again... Hopefully, this will be ok now.

@DominiqueMakowski
Copy link
Member

Guess not 😓

Debian: <https://win-builder.r-project.org/incoming_pretest/modelbased_0.9.0_20250120_143423/Debian/00check.log>
Status: 2 NOTEs

Last released version's CRAN status: OK: 13
See: <https://cran.r-project.org/web/checks/check_results_modelbased.html>

CRAN Web: <https://cran.r-project.org/package=modelbased>

Please fix all problems and resubmit a fixed version via the webform.
If you are not sure how to fix the problems shown, please ask for help on the R-package-devel mailing list:
<https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel>
If you are fairly certain the rejection is a false positive, please reply-all to this message and explain.

More details are given in the directory:
<https://win-builder.r-project.org/incoming_pretest/modelbased_0.9.0_20250120_143423/>
The files will be removed after roughly 7 days.

*** Strong rev. depends ***: easystats see

Best regards,
CRAN teams' auto-check service
Flavor: r-devel-windows-x86_64
Check: *, Result: OK


Flavor: r-devel-linux-x86_64-debian-gcc
Check: examples, Result: NOTE
  Examples with CPU (user + system) or elapsed time > 5s
                                            user system elapsed
  visualisation_recipe.estimate_predicted 15.709  0.320   3.264
  estimate_slopes                         14.813  0.419   1.616
  estimate_means                           9.680  0.283   1.267
  get_emmeans                              7.730  0.181   1.415
  Examples with CPU time > 2.5 times elapsed time
                                            user system elapsed ratio
  estimate_slopes                         14.813  0.419   1.616 9.426
  estimate_means                           9.680  0.283   1.267 7.863
  get_emmeans                              7.730  0.181   1.415 5.591
  visualisation_recipe.estimate_predicted 15.709  0.320   3.264 4.911

Flavor: r-devel-linux-x86_64-debian-gcc
Check: tests, Result: NOTE
    Running 'testthat.R' [123s/18s]
  Running R code in 'testthat.R' had CPU time 7 times elapsed time

@strengejacke
Copy link
Member Author

ok, I'll check some examples. And quickly integrate #360

@strengejacke strengejacke merged commit 0c08a45 into main Jan 20, 2025
18 of 22 checks passed
@strengejacke strengejacke deleted the rc_0_9_0 branch January 20, 2025 15:06
@strengejacke
Copy link
Member Author

Ups, sorry, merged the wrong PR 🤣
Will open another one for submission

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.

2 participants