Fix #25

[bitbacchus]

Please review.

I finally decided against exporting the functions as they would require documentation then and as the functions are part of the doc themselves, this would make no sense, imho... Hence there is no Roxygen needed.

TODO:

• bump version / update NEWS.md
• update RcppProgress-package.Rd Using RcppProgress in your package
  • RcppProgress (>= new version)
  • MakeVars is not needed anymore when you use // [[Rcpp::depends(RcppProgress)]] (AFAIK)

[kforner]

where is CxxFlags() used ?

[bitbacchus]

where is CxxFlags() used ?

In de doc:

MakeVars
edit src/MakeVars and replace its content by

PKG_LIBS = '$(R_HOME)/bin/Rscript -e "Rcpp:::LdFlags()"' $(SHLIB_OPENMP_CXXFLAGS) '$(R_HOME)/bin/Rscript -e "RcppProgress:::CxxFlags()"' and

PKG_CXXFLAGS +=-Ilibsrc $(SHLIB_OPENMP_CXXFLAGS) '$(R_HOME)/bin/Rscript -e "RcppProgress:::CxxFlags()"'

(and I use it to set up my build environment with qmake)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #27 into master will decrease coverage by 30.00%.
The diff coverage is 25.00%.

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##            master      #27       +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage   100.00%   70.00%   -30.00%     
============================================
  Files            1        2        +1     
  Lines           24       30        +6     
============================================
- Hits            24       21        -3     
- Misses           0        9        +9     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
R/CxxFlags.R	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
R/wrap_examples.R	91.30% <60.00%> (-8.70%)	⬇️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update b706e3b...836a849. Read the comment docs.

[kforner]

• wrap_examples should be removed
• tests should use the R code from the package
• CxxFlags() should be tested

[bitbacchus]

Can you elaborate a bit?

• wrap_examples should be removed

you mean the one in the tests? I have no clue why it is there. Did you write it?
Or should each fun go to a separate file?

• tests should use the R code from the package

I have not touched the tests, except the removal of the source(...).

• CxxFlags() should be tested

Do you have a suggestion against what should be tested? I mean the function returns different strings, depending on your installation...

[kforner]

you mean the one in the tests? I have no clue why it is there. Did you write it?
Or should each fun go to a separate file?

I probably moved it from R/ when I wrote the tests, forgetting that it was referenced in the docs.
Should be removed from tests/

• tests should use the R code from the package

I have not touched the tests, except the removal of the source(...).

I don't think they work, e.g. test_sequential(nb = 500) should be replaced by RcppProgress:::test_sequential(nb = 500) since the functions are not exported. Or maybe we should export them..., especiall cxxflags.

Do you have a suggestion against what should be tested? I mean the function returns different strings, depending on your installation...

just checking that it's callable is a start. You could try to mess up with .Platform (and restoring it) to test the two cases if you are motivated.