You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Description:
I would like to request the addition of the null.ok = TRUE parameter to the checkmate::check_names function. This feature would allow for more concise and elegant input validation when checking if an object is either a list or NULL, and if it is a list, ensuring that it has specific names.
Current Limitation:
Currently, for example, the checkmate::check_list function supports the null.ok parameter, allowing us to check if an object is either a list or NULL. However, the checkmate::check_names function does not support the null.ok parameter. This limitation makes it challenging to perform both checks in a single assert call.
Proposed Usage:
With the proposed feature, the code could be simplified as follows:
foo<-function(x) {
checkmate::assert(
checkmate::check_list(x, null.ok=TRUE, names="named"),
checkmate::check_names(names(x), must.include= c("a", "b"), null.ok=TRUE) # NOTE: `null.ok` currently not a supported argument!
)
# ...
}
Am I overlooking something, or what is your proposed usage? Thank you for considering this feature request.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Description:
I would like to request the addition of the
null.ok = TRUE
parameter to thecheckmate::check_names
function. This feature would allow for more concise and elegant input validation when checking if an object is either a list orNULL
, and if it is a list, ensuring that it has specific names.Current Limitation:
Currently, for example, the
checkmate::check_list
function supports thenull.ok
parameter, allowing us to check if an object is either a list orNULL
. However, thecheckmate::check_names
function does not support thenull.ok
parameter. This limitation makes it challenging to perform both checks in a singleassert
call.Proposed Usage:
With the proposed feature, the code could be simplified as follows:
Am I overlooking something, or what is your proposed usage? Thank you for considering this feature request.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: