fix namespace

[clarkliming]

close #417

[shajoezhu]

@clarkliming ， number changed a lot, are they ok?

[github-actions]

🧪 $Test coverage: 91.62%$

Code Coverage Summary

Filename                     Stmts    Miss  Cover    Missing
-------------------------  -------  ------  -------  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
R/aet01_aesi.R                 187       8  95.72%   37, 39-43, 266, 278
R/aet01.R                      328       6  98.17%   36, 238, 250, 312, 318, 544
R/aet02.R                      219       2  99.09%   129, 469
R/aet03.R                       83       0  100.00%
R/aet04.R                      105       2  98.10%   162, 167
R/assertions.R                  64       0  100.00%
R/checks.R                      20       0  100.00%
R/chevron_tlg-S4class.R         21       0  100.00%
R/chevron_tlg-S4methods.R      131      13  90.08%   43, 408-480
R/cmt01a.R                     189       0  100.00%
R/cmt02_pt.R                    51       0  100.00%
R/dmt01.R                       40       0  100.00%
R/dst01.R                      283       0  100.00%
R/dtht01.R                     102       0  100.00%
R/egt01.R                       45       0  100.00%
R/egt02.R                       58       0  100.00%
R/egt03.R                      130       3  97.69%   114, 158, 311
R/egt05_qtcat.R                 55       0  100.00%
R/ext01.R                       79       8  89.87%   230-233, 237-240
R/gen_args.R                     1       1  0.00%    29
R/lbt01.R                       94       0  100.00%
R/lbt04.R                       51       1  98.04%   120
R/lbt05.R                       75      10  86.67%   32-40, 145
R/lbt07.R                       86       1  98.84%   164
R/lbt14.R                      200      34  83.00%   53, 55, 103-106, 108-116, 146, 175, 257, 259, 307-310, 312-320, 350, 379
R/mht01.R                       71       2  97.18%   32-33
R/mng01.R                       93      12  87.10%   110, 114-117, 126-134, 177
R/pdt01.R                       60      37  38.33%   34-50, 102-142
R/pdt02.R                       67       0  100.00%
R/utils.R                      194     136  29.90%   70, 83-241, 402
R/vst01.R                       47       0  100.00%
R/vst02.R                      100       3  97.00%   40, 114, 245
TOTAL                         3329     279  91.62%

Diff against main

Filename      Stmts    Miss  Cover
----------  -------  ------  -------
R/utils.R        +6      +6  -0.95%
TOTAL            +6      +6  -0.17%

Results for commit: 2f83c76b4b232b4ffa905938041c272025df784d

Minimum allowed coverage is 80%

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results

[github-actions]

Unit Tests Summary

    1 files    26 suites   1m 40s ⏱️
129 tests   91 ✔️ 38 💤 0 ❌
277 runs  186 ✔️ 91 💤 0 ❌

Results for commit 3e239d1.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[github-actions]

Unit Test Performance Difference

Test Suite	$Status$	Time on main	$±Time$	$±Tests$	$±Skipped$	$±Failures$	$±Errors$
default_tlg	💔	$39.79$	$+2.52$	$0$	$0$	$0$	$0$

Results for commit 2f83c76b4b232b4ffa905938041c272025df784d

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[clarkliming]

@shajoezhu in #385 this PR changes a lot of the snapshots. Here it is reverted back.

previous changes should not lead to successful github check actions. Do you have any idea why it passed?

[Melkiades]

why is this happening?

[Melkiades]

@BFalquet

[BFalquet]

there are three instances of sample in the syn_test_data that generate the data for testing for adlb (here

chevron/R/utils.R

Line 173 in 9f3d0ce

sample(x = c("LAST", "REPLICATED", "SINGLE"), size = n(), replace = TRUE, prob = c(0.3, 0.6, 0.1)),

and below.) Please set seed of find another way to generate data. Cheers

[clarkliming]

seed are already set and this should not change anything

[Melkiades]

I think the seed should be set in the test itself if something is generated anew there

[Melkiades]

but adlb is generated beforehand is it?

[BFalquet]

seeds are consumed by first usage of the sample e.g.

> library(dplyr)
> 
> set.seed(840)
> m2 <- mtcars %>% 
+   mutate(s1 = sample(c("A", "B"), nrow(.env$mtcars), prob= c(0.5, 0.5), replace = TRUE)) %>% 
+   mutate(s2 = sample(c("A", "B"), nrow(.env$mtcars), prob= c(0.5, 0.5), replace = TRUE))
>
> identical(m2$s1, m2$s2)
[1] FALSE

can be fixed by the ugly:

> m3 <- mtcars %>% 
+   mutate(s1 = {
+     set.seed(840)
+     sample(c("A", "B"), nrow(.env$mtcars), prob= c(0.5, 0.5), replace = TRUE)
+     }) %>% 
+   mutate(s2 = {
+     set.seed(840)
+     sample(c("A", "B"), nrow(.env$mtcars), prob= c(0.5, 0.5), replace = TRUE)
+   })
> 
> identical(m3$s1, m3$s2)
[1] TRUE

[Melkiades]

I always thought it was scope-wise, i.e. valid for each "block" of code. This is not a big problem in other stuff I guess because we always have only one sample per testing block. I think we need to fix the seed for every call then!! Nice catch Benoit

[Melkiades]

Lgtm anyway, if we can guarantee this is not changing in the next PR due to data reinitialization. It is necessary though to do testthat::snapshot_accept(<FILE>) before all to accept the changes in _snaps and avoid the .new files

[BFalquet]

Lgtm anyway, if we can guarantee this is not changing in the next PR due to data reinitialization. It is necessary though to do testthat::snapshot_accept(<FILE>) before all to accept the changes in _snaps and avoid the .new files

Use fix mentioned above if necessary

[clarkliming]

Lgtm anyway, if we can guarantee this is not changing in the next PR due to data reinitialization. It is necessary though to do testthat::snapshot_accept(<FILE>) before all to accept the changes in _snaps and avoid the .new files

I think these new files are also created in #385 . in this PR these new files are removed

[Melkiades]

You are right @clarkliming! I think we can eventually fix the sample problem after this

[Melkiades]

Lgtm! Thanks Emily for the fix and Benoit for catching the problem ;)

[BFalquet]

Works for me too, clear for merge, thanks a lot