The Date field is over a month old.
Sorry indeed a commit reverted it back to last date. Fixed it and rechecked the package on rhub.
Please proof-read your description text. Currently it reads: "...use 'Firebase Storage' to ..." -> Should probably begin with a capital "U" since it is a new sentence
Thanks, changed in the DESCRIPTION file.
Please add \value to .Rd files regarding exported methods and explain the functions results in the documentation. Please write about the structure of the output (class) and also what the output means. (If a function does not return a value, please document that too, e.g. \value{No return value, called for side effects} or similar) Missing Rd-tags in up to 15 .Rd files, e.g.: Analytics.Rd: \value dependencies.Rd: \value Firebase.Rd: \value FirebaseAuth.Rd: \value FirebaseEmailLink.Rd: \value FirebaseEmailPassword.Rd: \value ...
We added the \value to all the .Rd files regarding exported methods
Unexecutable code in man/Storage.Rd: observeEvent(s$get_response() {
Missing comma indeed ! Fixed it.
Functions which are supposed to only run interactively (e.g. shiny) should be wrapped in if(interactive()). Please replace /dontrun{} with if(interactive()){} if possible, then users can see that the functions are not intended for use in scripts / functions that are supposed to run non interactively. \dontrun{} should only be used if the example really cannot be executed (e.g. because of missing additional software, missing API keys, ...) by the user. That's why wrapping examples in \dontrun{} adds the comment ("# Not run:") as a warning for the user.
Indeed we wrapped it (and the other ones) in \dontrun{} in purpose because of missing API keys required from Firebase.
Please always make sure to reset to user's options(), working directory or par() after you changed it in examples and vignettes and demos. --> man/FirebaseEmailLink.Rd. e.g.: old <- options(digits = 3) ... options(old)
Fixed it in FirebaseEmailLink.Rd which was the only example requiring this change.
Additionally: Have the issues why your package was archived been fixed?
Yes, I talked with the past maintainer and they have been fixed but not resubmitted because of lack of time. Thanks for your time and feedback !
- R-hub windows-x86_64-devel (r-devel)
- R-hub ubuntu-gcc-release (r-release)
- R-hub fedora-clang-devel (r-devel)
❯ On windows-x86_64-devel (r-devel) checking CRAN incoming feasibility ... [16s] NOTE
New maintainer: David Munoz Tord david.munoztord@mailbox.org Old maintainer(s): John Coene jcoenep@gmail.com Maintainer: 'David Munoz Tord david.munoztord@mailbox.org'
❯ On ubuntu-gcc-release (r-release) checking CRAN incoming feasibility ... [8s/32s] NOTE Maintainer: ‘David Munoz Tord david.munoztord@mailbox.org’
New maintainer: David Munoz Tord david.munoztord@mailbox.org Old maintainer(s): John Coene jcoenep@gmail.com
❯ On ubuntu-gcc-release (r-release), fedora-clang-devel (r-devel) checking HTML version of manual ... NOTE Skipping checking HTML validation: no command 'tidy' found
❯ On fedora-clang-devel (r-devel) checking CRAN incoming feasibility ... [12s/39s] NOTE Maintainer: ‘David Munoz Tord david.munoztord@mailbox.org’
New maintainer: David Munoz Tord david.munoztord@mailbox.org Old maintainer(s): John Coene jcoenep@gmail.com
0 error ✖ | 0 warnings ✔ | 3 notes ✖