Skip to content

Add issue template for revdep check failures #7662

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
mahjabinoyshi wants to merge 3 commits into from
+45 −0
Closed

Add issue template for revdep check failures #7662

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
9bacc12
Add issue template for revdep check failures
mahjabinoyshi Mar 6, 2026
608ba17
Clean formatting of revdep check failure template
mahjabinoyshi Mar 6, 2026
5338a8f
Fix escaping in revdep issue template
mahjabinoyshi Mar 6, 2026
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
45 changes: 45 additions & 0 deletions .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/revdep-check-failure.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
---
name: Revdep check failure
about: Contact a reverse dependency maintainer about a new check failure caused by data.table changes
title: "[revdep] YOUR_PACKAGE: new check failure with data.table master"
labels: []
assignees: []
---
Hi @MAINTAINER,
Copy link
Member

@tdhock tdhock Mar 8, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

this is incorrect, should be a message to data.table devs, not the maintainer of another pkg.

After installing **data.table** from GitHub master
```r
data.table::update_dev_pkg()
```
and then running `R CMD check` on **YOUR_PACKAGE**, I get the following new failure, which is **not present** when using data.table from CRAN.
Copy link
Member

@tdhock tdhock Mar 8, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
and then running `R CMD check` on **YOUR_PACKAGE**, I get the following new failure, which is **not present** when using data.table from CRAN.
and then running `R CMD check` on the current CRAN version of **YOUR_PACKAGE**, I get the following new failure, which is **not present** when using data.table from CRAN.

## Package and environment
- Package: YOUR_PACKAGE
- Package version: YOUR_PACKAGE_VERSION
- R version(s): R_RELEASE_AND_OR_R_DEVEL
- data.table versions:
- CRAN: DT_CRAN_VERSION
- GitHub master: DT_MASTER_SHA_OR_VERSION
- Platform: OS / architecture (for example, linux-x86_64)
Comment on lines +14 to +21
Copy link
Member

@tdhock tdhock Mar 8, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
## Package and environment
- Package: YOUR_PACKAGE
- Package version: YOUR_PACKAGE_VERSION
- R version(s): R_RELEASE_AND_OR_R_DEVEL
- data.table versions:
- CRAN: DT_CRAN_VERSION
- GitHub master: DT_MASTER_SHA_OR_VERSION
- Platform: OS / architecture (for example, linux-x86_64)

## Related data.table issue and commit
- Data.table issue: https://github.com/Rdatatable/data.table/issues/REVDEP_ISSUE_NUMBER
- First bad commit (from revdep checks): https://github.com/Rdatatable/data.table/commit/FIRST_BAD_COMMIT_SHA
Copy link
Member

@tdhock tdhock Mar 8, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
- First bad commit (from revdep checks): https://github.com/Rdatatable/data.table/commit/FIRST_BAD_COMMIT_SHA

## Check output
Below is the relevant part of the failing check log:
```text
OUTPUT_FROM_FAILING_CHECK
```
## Suggested fix
Before uploading new versions to CRAN, **data.table** needs to ensure that updates do not break CRAN checks in dependent packages like **YOUR_PACKAGE**. So can you please submit an updated version of **YOUR_PACKAGE** to CRAN that fixes this check issue?
In particular, I would suggest to avoid
> DOING_WHAT_YOU_ARE_DOING_CURRENTLY
...
> DOING_SOMETHING_MORE_ROBUST.
## Additional context (optional)
- Minimal reproducible example, if available.
- Links to previous revdep check runs or CRAN check results for YOUR_PACKAGE.
- Any notes that might help debug.






Loading