`fwb` transpiler: progress bar is one tick short when `simple = TRUE`
Nadie ha tomado este issue todavía.
Evaluación
- Dificultad
- 3/5
- Tiempo estimado
- 1-2 días
- Aptitud para principiantes
- 68/100
- Tipo de issue
- Error
- Claridad
- Bastante claro
- Estado de actividad
- Activo
- Stack tecnológico
- r
- Área
- developer-experience, tooling
Línea de trabajo
Inspecciona el código generado en template_fwb_outer y template_fwb_FUN, comenzando por cómo se establece y decrementa .progressr_skip_count alrededor de las llamadas a la estadística de fwb(). Verifica las actualizaciones de progreso con respecto a la versión de desarrollo y fwb 0.6.0, incluido el comportamiento dependiente de la versión; se considera completado cuando la primera réplica no se pierde y las versiones compatibles producen exactamente R actualizaciones cuando se puede conocer el número de réplicas.
Escrito por el modelo de indexación a partir del texto del issue.
Descripción
The fwb transpiler's skip count assumes fwb() calls statistic on unit weights
twice when simple = TRUE. In the current fwb development version it calls it once,
whatever simple is, so the wrapper swallows the first real bootstrap replicate's update
and the bar finishes one tick short of R. This might cause an issue once the development version is on CRAN, so I wanted to let you know before I submitted it.
template_fwb_outer sets:
.progressr_skip_count <- if (.progressr_simple) 2L else 1L
and template_fwb_FUN decrements that on each call before it starts ticking. The count is
the number of times fwb() calls statistic before the R replicates begin.
In fwb 0.6.0 and earlier, simple = TRUE did call statistic twice on unit weights: the
second call existed only to detect whether statistic had a random component, which
determined whether the bootstrap weights could later be recovered. The development version
recovers the weights from recorded RNG streams instead, so that detection became
unnecessary and the second call was removed. There is now exactly one unit-weight call in
both cases.
An unconditional
.progressr_skip_count <- 1L
is correct for the development version and for every release after it.
It would break fwb 0.6.0, though: simple = TRUE there would leave the second
unit-weight call to be counted as a tick, giving R + 1 updates against a progressor with
R steps. So if you want to keep 0.6.0 working, this needs a version test:
.progressr_skip_count <- if (.progressr_simple &&
utils::packageVersion("fwb") <= "0.6.0") 2L else 1L
Note that an unconditional skip count also removes the need to infer simple,
which the template currently does by reproducing fwb()'s default rule:
.progressr_simple <- if (is.null(SIMPLE)) WTYPE != "multinom" else SIMPLE
With a constant skip count, SIMPLE and WTYPE are not needed at all.
Related, separate: R is not always the number of replicates
Worth flagging while you're in this code, since it also makes .progressr_steps wrong.
The development version adds an exhaustive multinomial bootstrap: because there are only
n^n distinct multinomial resamples of n units, when R reaches that many fwb() uses
each exactly once and reduces R to that number. The transpiler takes steps from the
R in the call, so the bar stalls partway.
Only reachable for very small n (n = 6 already has 46656 resamples, so with the default
R = 999 nothing above n = 4 is affected), and fwb() emits a message saying it has done
this. There may be nothing worth doing about it since the number of replicates isn't knowable
from the call alone, so a transpiler arguably cannot get this right in general. Recording it
rather than proposing a fix. Sorry to add this complication.
(Note: I used Claude Code to help with these edits and this issue.)
- Lenguaje dominante
- R
- Estrellas
- 4
- Forks
- 0
- Métricas de merge de PR
- Sin PR fusionados en 30 d
Guía de contribución
No hay ninguna guía de contribución indexada para este repositorio
Primeros pasos
- Lee el issue completo y luego la guía de contribución del proyecto.
- Comenta en el issue que vas a ocuparte — evita que dos personas hagan lo mismo.
- Haz un fork del repositorio y trabaja en una rama.
- Abre un pull request que haga referencia al número del issue.
Más de futureverse/progressify
-
Add support for for-loops Abierto
Dificultad 3/5 1-2 días Aptitud para principiantes 55/100
Todos los issues de futureverse/progressify
Issues similares
-
Affects Web App documentation PRIORITY LOW
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 75/100
-
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 75/100
-
Dificultad 1/5 Menos de una hora Aptitud para principiantes 80/100
hubverse-org/hubCI#36 ·
-
Dificultad 1/5 Menos de una hora Aptitud para principiantes 85/100
-
Release 1.4.0 Abierto
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 70/100
pharmaverse/pharmaverseadam#170 ·