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

explain tar_option_set(error = “null”) in the debugging chapter #64

Closed
2 of 6 tasks
wlandau opened this issue Oct 15, 2022 · 2 comments
Closed
2 of 6 tasks

Comments

@wlandau
Copy link
Member

wlandau commented Oct 15, 2022

Prework

  • Read and agree to the code of conduct and contributing guidelines.
  • If there is already a relevant issue, whether open or closed, comment on the existing thread instead of posting a new issue.
  • For any problems you identify, post a minimal reproducible example like this one so the maintainer can troubleshoot. A reproducible example is:
    • Runnable: post enough R code and data so any onlooker can create the error on their own computer.
    • Minimal: reduce runtime wherever possible and remove complicated details that are irrelevant to the issue at hand.
    • Readable: format your code according to the tidyverse style guide.
@wlandau
Copy link
Member Author

wlandau commented Oct 28, 2022

Done in the debugging chapter rewrite.

@wlandau wlandau closed this as completed Oct 28, 2022
@CorradoLanera
Copy link

@wlandau , in the chapter you have mentioned: "This is especially helpful with dynamic branching."

Why/how? If a branch of a pattern returns an error, i.e., a NULL returned output, does the branch's parent pattern succeed in merging its other branches so that the children(s) can run? Maybe, it could be of high utility to include the information in the manual. I have experienced an 8k branches pattern in the middle of a pipeline, with 1 single error; I would love to simply "ignore" before/instead of go backward to find the CSV row in the source file with the affecting line and change my "data-raw" (or create an additional middle target with that line removed). Maybe I could correct the issue in the future, but now I need a final result that simply ignores that.

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants