add error message for class "difftime"

[ayogasekaram]

closes #215

Adding an error message for now for clarity - we can revisit supporting the "difftime" class type based on user requests.

[github-actions]

✅ All contributors have signed the CLA
_{Posted by the CLA Assistant Lite bot.}

[github-actions]

Code Coverage Summary

Filename                 Stmts    Miss  Cover    Missing
---------------------  -------  ------  -------  ----------------------------------------
R/paginate_listing.R        29       0  100.00%
R/rlistings_methods.R      117      26  77.78%   18-29, 49, 65, 69, 155-158, 161, 245-251
R/rlistings.R              183      13  92.90%   180, 389-392, 396-399, 428-431
TOTAL                      329      39  88.15%

Diff against main

Filename         Stmts    Miss  Cover
-------------  -------  ------  -------
R/rlistings.R       +2       0  +0.08%
TOTAL               +2       0  +0.07%

Results for commit: 40a4723

Minimum allowed coverage is 80%

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results

[ayogasekaram]

I have read the CLA Document and I hereby sign the CLA

[github-actions]

Unit Tests Summary

  1 files   5 suites   10s ⏱️
 40 tests 30 ✅ 10 💤 0 ❌
107 runs  92 ✅ 15 💤 0 ❌

Results for commit 40a4723.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[github-actions]

Unit Test Performance Difference

Additional test case details

Test Suite	$Status$	Time on main	$±Time$	Test Case
listings	👶		$+0.01$	appropriate_error_message_returned_for_difftime_class

Results for commit f07d627

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[Melkiades]

Great fix! we should do the same for {rtables}. It happens from time to time. Just wondering if it would be better to check this before creating the listing (and table). What do you think? I am quite sure that the one in {rtables} should be in build_table because it is the first checks when you see the data.

[Melkiades]

remember news file ;)

[shajoezhu]

lgtm! thanks @ayogasekaram

we can merge this once insightsengineering/scda.test#164 is green

[BFalquet]

Same opinion as @Melkiades, I would put the assertion in as_listings so that it is clear the the error is due to the data, not subsequent modification of the listing. thank you.

[shajoezhu]

yes, assertion in as_listings from the start, printing is too downstream

[shajoezhu]

hi @ayogasekaram can you please update, use assertion, thanks!

[ayogasekaram]

I've shifted the check to the as_listing function. I opted to not use the checkmate function because the error message seemed lengthy, but I can replace with this if required.
@shajoezhu

[shajoezhu]

lgtm! thanks @ayogasekaram