Reduce test tolerance to avoid repeated test failure #18
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Thank you. This is accetpable. Rcpp helps a lot in my package. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Dear phenofit team,
During reverse-dependency tests for packages I look after (e.g. Rcpp and RcppArmadillo), package
phenofitstarted to reliably fail just one test on some systems but not others. Sadly, one of the CRAN reference machines (administered by @kurthornik) is among those so this always triggers an email chain between CRAN and the corresponding maintainer. On the last round I suggested to CRAN that 'we' should talk to you and they of course cleverly assigned me :) I was able to reproduce this in a container (runningrocker/r2u:24.04on an older i7-8700). Switching the default tolerance from 1e-6 to 1e-5 in two instances overcomes this.There is still remaining 'chatter' of the 'warning: solve(): system is singular; attempting approx solution' type that I also talked about with the author of Armadillo; his view was that this is likely due to your example / data and there is little he can do. At least that does not lead to a FAIL.
Concerning the two-line change for the FAIL, you will know better if this has undesirable side effects. It you see this as appropriate and could consider this in your next upload it might make overall operations a little smoother.