Include CRAN error/warning/note where relevant

[hturner]

For cases that produce an error/warning/note, such as Formatting Software Names, it would be good if we could include the message produced so that the cookbook may be discovered if people do a web search based on the message.

This does introduce a bit of a maintenance issue, as the message may change over time, but I think it will increase the usefulness of the cookbook.

[Baltmann01]

I started adding the standard response from CRAN team members for the last recipes (e.g.: the .GlobalEnv issue). When we are done with (most) recipes, I will go through and add them for the earlier recipes as well.

Errors/warnings/notes from the automated checks are not implemented yet. The problem there is that I don't really see them when doing CRAN work as the packages are rejected before they reach me. I suppose those issues are more likely detected by package authors of the community. @jasdumas and I are discussing good ways, how they can contribute. We will also talk a bit about this in our time meeting next week.

[llrs]

The other day was checking BiocChecks that implements the check for Bioconductor.
They have a vignette with the messages it provides, this is very helpful for users/developers to see how to fix that ERROR/WARNING/NOTE.
Although you don't see it won't be too difficult to collect them via tools::CRAN_check_details():

ccd <- tools::CRAN_check_details()
library("dplyr")
f <- ccd |> 
     as.data.frame() |> 
     filter(nzchar(Output)) |> 
     distinct(Check, Output) |> 
     arrange(Check, Output)

Which shows that currently there are 47 different checks failing (with different outputs). BTW, related to #55, the most common check message is about "installed package size" with one above 98Mb

[Baltmann01]

That's a great hint! I'll look into this and keep it in mind when adding some issues/NOTEs in the future. Thanks

[llrs]

@jasdumas Is this completed? I couldn't find them on the website or I haven't seen any major update with all the ~40 errors/warnings that CRAN packages have and how to fix them.

[jasdumas]

Let me confirm with @Baltmann01 on the priority of this since it was raised last year!

[llrs]

The (internal) priority of a team and closing an issue are two (related) views. But they are not the same. When it got closed I understood that there is no interest on expanding to these other cases...

I understand that we are chasing a long tail of problems but each message addressed could potentially be many hours saved from CRAN reviewers (and package developers). Not saying also to address all of them at once, but to keep the door open to add now and then one or two more and keep expanding/updating the cookbook with the more prominent/common issues.