Repository navigation
Don't "double-print" in output= tests #6188
Description
Whenever output= is used in test(), we force print(x):
data.table/R/test.data.table.R
Line 425 in f5a1e09
We can consider not doing so if x already contains a call to print(), e.g. these 27 cases:
library(lintr)
l <- make_linter_from_xpath(
"//SYMBOL_FUNCTION_CALL[text()='test']
/parent::expr
/following-sibling::expr[expr/SYMBOL_FUNCTION_CALL[text()='print']]
/following-sibling::SYMBOL_SUB[text()='output']",
"xxx"
)
lint_dir("inst/tests", l(), pattern="Rraw") |>
as.data.frame() |>
_[, "line"] |>
writeLines()test(3, print(DT), output=c(" x y", "1: 1 <ex_class[3]>", "2: 2 <ex_class[3]>"))
test(779, print(DT[,sum(a),by=b]), output=" b V1\n1: a 3\n2: b 3$")
test(1006, print(as.data.table(M), nrows=10), output="gear NA.*1: 21.0")
test(1037.103, print(ans[c(1,1326)]), output="state.*income.*retailprice.*percent_15_19.*beercons.*variable.*value.*1.*9.6.*89.34.*smoking88.*smoking00.*41.6")
test(1037.301, print(melt(DT, id.vars="month", verbose=TRUE)), output="'measure.vars' is missing.*Assigned 'measure.vars' are [[]Record high, Average high, Daily mean, Average low, ...[]].*1:.*Jan.*Record high.*12.8.*108:.*Sep.*sunshine hours.*174.1")
test(1056, print(DT, digits=2), output=" x y logy\n1: a 18 2.9\n2: a 79 4.4\n3: a 337 5.8")
test(1057, print(DT, digits=2, big.mark=","), output=" x y logy\n1: a 18 2.9.*6: b 26,556 10.2\n7: c 113,811 11.6")
test(1636.2, print(dt), output="1: 1 <function[1]>")
test(1636.4, print(dt), output="2: 2 <function[1]>")
test(1636.6, print(dt), output="2: 2 <function[1]>")
test(1765.1, print(IDateTime(x)), output=".*idate.*itime.*1: 2017-03-1[67]",
test(1893.1, print(DT), output=txt<-c(" A B", "1: 1 FOO", "2: 2 ", "3: 3 <NA>", "4: 4 NA"))
test(1893.2, print(DF), output=txt)
test(1893.3, print(fread(txt,na.strings="")), output="A B\n1: 109 MT\n2: 7 N\n3: 11 NA\n4: 41 NB\n5: 60 ND\n6: 1 \n7: 2 <NA>\n8: 3 NA\n9: 4 NA")
test(2015.4, print(DT), output="V1.*1:[ ]+<NA>.*2:[ ]+1.*101:[ ]+100.*102:[ ]+<NA>")
test(2015.5, print(DT), output="V1.*1:[ ]+<NA>.*2:[ ]+1.*4:[ ]+3.*5:[ ]+<NA>")
test(2089.3, print(DF), output="<multi-column>")
test(2114.4, print(res), output="date.*-0.830")
test(2130.01, print(DT), output=c(" x y", "1: 1 <data.table[1x2]>", "2: 2 <data.table[1x2]>"))
test(2130.02, print(DT), output=c(" x y", "1: 1 <list[2]>", "2: 2 <list[2]>"))
test(2130.101, print(DT, timezone=TRUE), output='UTC')
test(2130.11, print(data.table(e = expression(1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 + 12 + 13))), output = '1 + 2 + 3')
test(2130.13, print(DT), output="myclass2130:foo.*myclass2130:bar")
test(2130.14, print(DT), output="myclass2130:foo.*myclass2130:bar") # because length 1 from format but needs to be length(x)
test(2130.15, print(DT), output="All hail foo") # e.g. sf:::format.sfc rather than sf:::format.sfg on each item
test(2130.16, print(DT), output="myclass2130:foo.*myclass2130:bar")
test(2222, print(DT), output="A.*3")
Note that cases like print(DT), output=... could be linted into just DT, output=..., but cases like print(DT, ...) with non-default options need explicit print() invocation.
OTOH, maybe it's overkill / won't make the code any easier to understand to pursue this.
Activity
Nj221102 commentedon Jun 18, 2024
Should we remove
Print()from the already existing tests or this advice is just for the future use?MichaelChirico commentedon Jun 20, 2024
Honestly not sure. I think leaving it in existing tests is fine. This is about if we can avoid running
print()"under the hood" intest()whenoutput=is provided andx=is a call toprint(). Not sure it will actually improve the implementation at all, just a thought that it's odd to actually wind up runningprint()twice.joshhwuu commentedon Aug 7, 2024
IMO, it would be healthy to only print once -- I vaguely recall having trouble finding small differences when testing with print and output with large tables, as the test failure would "expect" a double print, which certainly looks worse than it really is... A small example I was able to make here:
It makes things a little harder to read as content gets bigger, requiring the reader to scroll horizontally a bit more.
Anyway, I believe separating not calling print twice when
xalready contains a call to print should be pretty easy, I'd be happy to write up a quick PR. (Also there may be a slight speed improvement forR CMD Checkby callingprintless? Although this is a constant and probably wouldn't matter in the big picture, might do some benchmarking)MichaelChirico commentedon Aug 9, 2024
Great motivating example. For now, I have #6266 in mind -- even if we fix the existing test scripts, it will be easy for them to backslide unless we have simple static checks in place. I also have #5830 and #5845 in mind -- while making this change does have the nice benefits you cite, it's not particularly urgent & will generate some git conflict churn in the meantime. So I would still prioritize burning down the PR queue first.
joshhwuu commentedon Aug 9, 2024
Right, this makes sense to me. If someone (probably future me) ever decides to pursue this, here's what I did to evaluate
xwithout printing if it already contains a call to print:MichaelChirico commentedon Dec 15, 2025
#7479 adds another use case / motivation