saperlipopette: a risk-free playground for learning more Git

[maelle]

Submitting Author Name: Maëlle Salmon
Submitting Author Github Handle: @maelle
Other Package Authors Github handles: (comma separated, delete if none) @yabellini
Repository: https://github.com/ropensci-training/saperlipopette
Version submitted: 0.1.1
Submission type: Standard
Editor: @robitalec
Reviewers: @jcoliver, @mine-cetinkaya-rundel

Due date for @mine-cetinkaya-rundel: 2026-04-13

Archive: TBD
Version accepted: TBD
Language: en

---

• Paste the full DESCRIPTION file inside a code block below:

Package: saperlipopette
Title: Create Example Git Messes
Version: 0.1.0.9000
Authors@R: c(
    person("Maëlle", "Salmon", , "msmaellesalmon@gmail.com", role = c("cre", "aut"),
           comment = c(ORCID = "0000-0002-2815-0399")),
    person("Jim", "Gardner", role = "ctb"),
    person("Yanina Bellini", "Saibene", role = "aut",
           comment = c(ORCID = "0000-0002-4522-7466"))
  )
Description: Holds functions creating Git messes, that users would then
    solve, to follow <https://ohshitgit.com/>.
License: MIT + file LICENSE
URL: https://docs.ropensci.org/saperlipopette/,
    https://github.com/ropensci-training/saperlipopette
BugReports: https://github.com/ropensci-training/saperlipopette/issues
Imports: 
    brio,
    cli,
    fs,
    gert,
    parsedate,
    purrr,
    rlang,
    roxygen2,
    tibble,
    usethis,
    withr
Suggests: 
    knitr,
    quarto,
    testthat (>= 3.0.0)
VignetteBuilder: 
    quarto
Config/Needs/website: rmarkdown, quarto
Config/potools/style: explicit
Config/testthat/edition: 3
Encoding: UTF-8
Roxygen: list(markdown = TRUE)
RoxygenNote: 7.3.3.9000
Config/ropensci/maintainer: staff

Scope

• Please indicate which category or categories from our package fit policies this package falls under: (Please check an appropriate box below. If you are unsure, we suggest you make a pre-submission inquiry.):

  • data retrieval
  • data extraction
  • data munging
  • data deposition
  • data validation and testing
  • workflow automation
  • version control
  • citation management and bibliometrics
  • scientific software wrappers
  • field and lab reproducibility tools
  • database software bindings
  • geospatial data
  • translation
  • rOpenSci internal tools

• Explain how and why the package falls under these categories (briefly, 1-2 sentences):

This package is used to teach Git during the technical training of rOpenSci champions.

• Who is the target audience and what are scientific applications of this package?

The target audience of saperlipopette consists of professionals developing software who usually work with R and know basic Git commands such as add, commit, push, and pull, and who understand a bit about branches, but are not yet fluent, and therefore underuse Git’s palette of features. The package is suitable for instructors to use as a safe practice environment during workshops when live-coding and running hands-on exercises, as well for for self-guided learners.

• Are there other R packages that accomplish the same thing? If so, how does yours differ or meet our criteria for best-in-category?

Not to our knowledge. There are online platforms for learning Git, but with saperlipopette you get exercises in your local environment.

• (If applicable) Does your package comply with our guidance around Ethics, Data Privacy and Human Subjects Research?

N/A

• If you made a pre-submission inquiry, please paste the link to the corresponding issue, forum post, or other discussion, or @tag the editor you contacted.

N/A

• Explain reasons for any pkgcheck items which your package is unable to pass.

Technical checks

Confirm each of the following by checking the box.

• I have read the rOpenSci packaging guide.
• I have read the author guide and I expect to maintain this package for at least 2 years or to find a replacement.

This package:

• does not violate the Terms of Service of any service it interacts with.
• has a CRAN and OSI accepted license.
• contains a README with instructions for installing the development version.
• includes documentation with examples for all functions, created with roxygen2.
• contains a vignette with examples of its essential functions and uses.
• has a test suite.
• has continuous integration, including reporting of test coverage.

Publication options

We intend to submit a paper about this package to JOSE. https://openjournals.readthedocs.io/en/jose/submitting.html (the process is expedited for packages that have been reviewed for rOpenSci https://openjournals.readthedocs.io/en/jose/editing.html?highlight=ropensci#finding-reviewers, like at JOSS)

• Do you intend for this package to go on CRAN?

• Do you intend for this package to go on Bioconductor?

• Do you wish to submit an Applications Article about your package to Methods in Ecology and Evolution? If so:

MEE Options

• The package is novel and will be of interest to the broad readership of the journal.
• The manuscript describing the package is no longer than 3000 words.
• You intend to archive the code for the package in a long-term repository which meets the requirements of the journal (see MEE's Policy on Publishing Code)
• (Scope: Do consider MEE's Aims and Scope for your manuscript. We make no guarantee that your manuscript will be within MEE scope.)
• (Although not required, we strongly recommend having a full manuscript prepared when you submit here.)
• (Please do not submit your package separately to Methods in Ecology and Evolution)

Code of conduct

• I agree to abide by rOpenSci's Code of Conduct during the review process and in maintaining my package should it be accepted.

AI usage

Some notes on LLM usage! I resumed work on saperlipopette after I got a Claude Code subscription and after we started drafting the AI policy, so I was particularly mindful of my LLM usage.

I used Claude to generate the latest exercises, based on my instructions on their content and on the infrastructure of existing exercises. I reviewed and tested the exercises. The first PR created in this way also added a checklist to the CONTRIBUTING.md file. Those commits have Claude as a co-author:

git log -i --grep="co-authored-by: claude"
commit a35f825b9c77ff82d064e090665e602c9721cf2d
Author: Maëlle Salmon <maelle.salmon@yahoo.se>
Date:   Fri Feb 13 10:37:09 2026 +0100

    feat: blame exercise (#40)
    
    Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6

commit a780263dae95ba2ae90d8ed424fd9fe521e02a4f
Author: Maëlle Salmon <maelle.salmon@yahoo.se>
Date:   Fri Feb 13 10:14:41 2026 +0100

    feat: git log exercises (#39)
    
    Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6

commit 380920fabaf4ceba81bf02b65c29f5b761b71158
Author: Maëlle Salmon <maelle.salmon@yahoo.se>
Date:   Fri Feb 13 09:43:13 2026 +0100

    feat: rev-parse exercise (#38)
    
    Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6

commit 4a997953d4a71fa4853cb5579be7cd758f2e3d98
Author: Maëlle Salmon <maelle.salmon@yahoo.se>
Date:   Fri Feb 13 09:01:42 2026 +0100

    feat: new worktree exercise (#37)
    
    Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6

I also used Claude for light editing of the paper.md (looking for repetitions) but that paper.md was mostly created and reviewed by me, Yanina Bellini Saibene, Steffi LaZerte.

The paper for JOSE is rendered as a vignette, the vignette is updated by running tools/update-paper-qmd.R which is an utility script written by Claude.

[ropensci-review-bot]

Thanks for submitting to rOpenSci, our editors and @ropensci-review-bot will reply soon. Type @ropensci-review-bot help for help.

[ropensci-review-bot]

🚀

Editor check started

👋

[ropensci-review-bot]

Checks for saperlipopette (v0.1.0.9000)

git hash: d0c7e4bd

• ✔️ Package name is available
• ✔️ has a 'contributing' file.
• ✔️ uses 'roxygen2'.
• ✔️ 'DESCRIPTION' has a URL field.
• ✔️ 'DESCRIPTION' has a BugReports field.
• ✔️ Package has at least one HTML vignette
• ✔️ All functions have examples.
• ✔️ Package has continuous integration checks.
• ✔️ Package coverage is 99.5%.
• ✔️ R CMD check found no errors.
• ✔️ R CMD check found no warnings.
• 👀 Some goodpractice linters failed.

(Checks marked with 👀 may be optionally addressed.)

Package License: MIT + file LICENSE

---

1. Package Dependencies

Details of Package Dependency Usage (click to open)

The table below tallies all function calls to all packages ('ncalls'), both internal (r-base + recommended, along with the package itself), and external (imported and suggested packages). 'NA' values indicate packages to which no identified calls to R functions could be found. Note that these results are generated by an automated code-tagging system which may not be entirely accurate.

type	package	ncalls
internal	base	136
internal	saperlipopette	54
internal	graphics	31
internal	stats	3
imports	fs	38
imports	brio	24
imports	usethis	19
imports	withr	19
imports	gert	3
imports	parsedate	2
imports	purrr	1
imports	rlang	1
imports	cli	NA
imports	roxygen2	NA
imports	tibble	NA
suggests	knitr	NA
suggests	quarto	NA
suggests	testthat	NA
linking_to	NA	NA

Click below for tallies of functions used in each package. Locations of each call within this package may be generated locally by running 's <- pkgstats::pkgstats(<path/to/repo>)', and examining the 'external_calls' table.

base

c (42), getwd (38), file.path (25), force (18), Sys.getenv (4), message (3), append (2), call (1), getNamespaceExports (1), getOption (1), sprintf (1)

saperlipopette

tr_ (14), git_links (5), default_author (2), default_committer (2), git_commit (2), create_all_exercises (1), create_commit (1), create_project (1), create_r_profile (1), dir_create (1), exo_bisect (1), exo_blame (1), exo_check_editor (1), exo_clean_dir (1), exo_committed_to_main (1), exo_committed_to_wrong (1), exo_conflict (1), exo_latest_message (1), exo_log_deleted_file (1), exo_log_deleted_line (1), exo_one_small_change (1), exo_rebase_i (1), exo_reset (1), exo_revert_file (1), exo_revparse (1), exo_split_changes (1), exo_time_machine (1), exo_undo_commit (1), exo_worktree (1), format_git_single_link (1), format.rd_section_gitcommands (1), git_hyde_commit (1), git_jekyll_commit (1), present_git_link (1)

fs

dir_ls (38)

graphics

text (31)

brio

write_lines (23), read_lines (1)

usethis

local_project (19)

withr

local_options (19)

gert

git_tag_create (2), git_log (1)

stats

time (2), df (1)

parsedate

parse_iso_8601 (2)

purrr

map_chr (1)

rlang

caller_env (1)

NOTE: Some imported packages appear to have no associated function calls; please ensure with author that these 'Imports' are listed appropriately.

---

2. Statistical Properties

This package features some noteworthy statistical properties which may need to be clarified by a handling editor prior to progressing.

Details of statistical properties (click to open)

The package has:

• code in R (96% in 84 files) and TeX (4% in 1 files)
• 2 authors
• 1 vignette
• no internal data file
• 11 imported packages
• 20 exported functions (median 33 lines of code)
• 15 non-exported functions in R (median 5 lines of code)

---

Statistical properties of package structure as distributional percentiles in relation to all current CRAN packages
The following terminology is used:

• loc = "Lines of Code"
• fn = "function"
• exp/not_exp = exported / not exported

All parameters are explained as tooltips in the locally-rendered HTML version of this report generated by the checks_to_markdown() function

The final measure (fn_call_network_size) is the total number of calls between functions (in R), or more abstract relationships between code objects in other languages. Values are flagged as "noteworthy" when they lie in the upper or lower 5th percentile.

measure	value	percentile	noteworthy
files_R	27	87.7
files_inst	58	99.4
files_vignettes	1	64.7
files_tests	23	96.3
loc_R	896	63.9
loc_inst	1309	83.1
loc_vignettes	79	19.1
loc_tests	174	48.6
num_vignettes	1	61.3
n_fns_r	35	68.6
n_fns_r_exported	20	66.7
n_fns_r_not_exported	15	71.4
n_fns_per_file_r	1	41.0
num_params_per_fn	1	3.3	TRUE
loc_per_fn_r	24	67.2
loc_per_fn_r_exp	34	66.9
loc_per_fn_r_not_exp	5	42.9
rel_whitespace_R	27	73.9
rel_whitespace_inst	10	94.3
rel_whitespace_vignettes	10	58.5
rel_whitespace_tests	2	52.1
doclines_per_fn_exp	18	14.9
doclines_per_fn_not_exp	16	94.1
fn_call_network_size	328	91.4

---

2a. Network visualisation

Click to see the interactive network visualisation of calls between objects in package

---

3. goodpractice and other checks

Details of goodpractice checks (click to open)

3a. Continuous Integration Badges

GitHub Workflow Results

id	name	conclusion	sha	run_number	date
22392315791	pkgcheck	success	d0c7e4	10	2026-02-25
22392315788	pkgdown	success	d0c7e4	154	2026-02-25
22392315803	R-CMD-check.yaml	success	d0c7e4	153	2026-02-25
22392315774	test-coverage.yaml	success	d0c7e4	135	2026-02-25

---

3b. goodpractice results

Test coverage with covr

Package coverage: 99.47

Cyclocomplexity with cyclocomp

No functions have cyclocomplexity >= 15

Static code analyses with lintr

lintr found no issues with this package!

---

Package Versions

package	version
pkgstats	0.2.2.13
pkgcheck	0.1.2.271

---

Editor-in-Chief Instructions:

This package is in top shape and may be passed on to a handling editor.

This package has some noteworthy properties, see 'Package Statistics' details above.

[emilyriederer]

@ropensci-review-bot assign @robitalec as editor

[ropensci-review-bot]

Assigned! @robitalec is now the editor

[robitalec]

Thanks @emilyriederer, and thank you @maelle and @yabellini for your submission.
I'm looking forward to helping as editor for the review, and learning about saperlipopette!

I will post my initial comments and full editor checks over the next couple days.

[robitalec]

Editor checks:

• Documentation: The package has sufficient documentation available online (README, pkgdown docs) to allow for an assessment of functionality and scope without installing the package. In particular,
  • Is the case for the package well made?
  • Is the reference index page clear (grouped by topic if necessary)?
  • Are vignettes readable, sufficiently detailed and not just perfunctory?
• Fit: The package meets criteria for fit and overlap.
• Installation instructions: Are installation instructions clear enough for human users?
• Tests: If the package has some interactivity / HTTP / plot production etc. are the tests using state-of-the-art tooling?
• Contributing information: Is the documentation for contribution clear enough e.g. tokens for tests, playgrounds?
• License: The package has a CRAN or OSI accepted license.
• Project management: Are the issue and PR trackers in a good shape, e.g. are there outstanding bugs, is it clear when feature requests are meant to be tackled?

---

Editor comments

Hello @maelle, thanks for your submission. The package is looking to be in great shape! I'll list a few things below that I'm hoping to clear up before we start looking for reviewers.

License:

• I'm seeing two different license related files: LICENSE and LICENSE.md.

Contributing:

• We could use a bit more information - right now we see "Please open an issue for any larger change (new exercise for instance).", but what about recommendations for eg. filing bugs, asking for help, contributing smaller changes?

Submission template:

• I edited the template to remove these two lines, they didn't seem to correspond to anything relevant:

Sub-directory: .
Sub-directory: .

• When we are ready to look for reviewers, could you edit the template to include the version number under "Version submitted"?

README:

• There are two code coverage badges in the README

tools/update.paper.qmd:

• The tool that Claude wrote for keeping the vignette updated based on the paper in inst/. Is it possible you could just use the Includes syntax instead? This works when I check locally with pkgdown::build_site and a basic render. But I'm not sure if it would work/be accepted everywhere (eg. CRAN).

vignettes/articles/paper.md

---
title: "saperlipopette, a risk-free playground for learning more Git"
bibliography: paper.bib
knitr:
  opts_chunk:
    collapse: true
    comment: '#>'
---

{{< include ../../inst/paper/paper.md >}}

tests:

• I see failing tests locally related to the testthat snapshots of gert::git_log hashes. These don't appear on the tests run through GitHub Actions, so I'm trying to figure them out. I've made sure my packages (gert, testthat) and version of libgit2 are updated. I see 1) mostly differences in Git hashes (eg. test-blame and test-committed-to-main) but also 2) some differences in test-create-all that might be due to snapshots not having RStudio Projects files, whereas my local tests generates them? Let me know what you think might be going on.

R: library(saperlipopette)
R: 
R: devtools::test('../saperlipopette')
ℹ Testing saperlipopette
✔ | F W  S  OK | Context
✖ | 1        1 | blame                                                                          
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Failure (test-blame.R:6:3): exo_blame() works
Snapshot of code has changed:
old vs new
  Code
    gert::git_log(repo = path)[["commit"]]
  Output
-   [1] "99738a808b6d5529d8de83fb20c0588ec5afff41"
+   [1] "e776cc8573afe6cb331159e4b9113ac60d49709e"
-   [2] "a334b44fc56f21a609989b187685bbcfbcaac4d7"
+   [2] "01bdc274b5d54de9a7ab4cad8869fdbe629ebd04"
-   [3] "d5ff861dede667b9856f42417585df40d5c0fb76"
+   [3] "376f91dfb553475c7a1e7632bb342a11dcb52384"
-   [4] "595c3093fe615679519631bf045b1bdd76a729cf"
+   [4] "797d5c39d7b5e8b08f3dc4f15b4eea971dd85b19"
-   [5] "2ee32ca74a45769de57f2cf4149adff0f1d9e61b"
+   [5] "1d65bddf84e335aa3bb32f1656a103648adf3714"
-   [6] "e227ecc55e421f70b6e30602e6a2eee02aad42e0"
+   [6] "b59b4809e7f0ec8a0df85b443baa73b332bd3b5b"
* Run testthat::snapshot_accept("blame", "/home/alecr/Documents/Local-git/saperlipopette/tests/testthat") to accept the change.
* Run testthat::snapshot_review("blame", "/home/alecr/Documents/Local-git/saperlipopette/tests/testthat") to review the change.
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
✔ |          1 | check-editor                                                                   
✖ | 1        1 | clean-dir                                                                      
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Failure (test-clean-dir.R:6:3): exo_clean_dir() works
Snapshot of code has changed:
old vs new
  Code
    gert::git_log(repo = path)[["commit"]]
  Output
-   [1] "2a61d9da6865eb7f7272c9f901f13c1da377a01e"
+   [1] "aec15965c3581c3dcba6359f74c91cd54fb5939d"
-   [2] "e227ecc55e421f70b6e30602e6a2eee02aad42e0"
+   [2] "c090f52d68d5a007775eddfe026b2e72e66eedcd"
* Run testthat::snapshot_accept("clean-dir", "/home/alecr/Documents/Local-git/saperlipopette/tests/testthat") to accept the change.
* Run testthat::snapshot_review("clean-dir", "/home/alecr/Documents/Local-git/saperlipopette/tests/testthat") to review the change.
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
✖ | 1        1 | committed-to-main                                                              
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Failure (test-committed-to-main.R:6:3): exo_committed_to_main() works
Snapshot of code has changed:
old vs new
  Code
    gert::git_log(repo = path)[["commit"]]
  Output
-   [1] "2ff0d31f566e68ae0ee94b6028a3fa2e24ed066a"
+   [1] "e7889516408acd1619610931f0e68a1b3c577007"
-   [2] "e227ecc55e421f70b6e30602e6a2eee02aad42e0"
+   [2] "1f4724b272699cdc79512cf053ef9bc66feaf8ca"
* Run testthat::snapshot_accept("committed-to-main", "/home/alecr/Documents/Local-git/saperlipopette/tests/testthat") to accept the change.
* Run testthat::snapshot_review("committed-to-main", "/home/alecr/Documents/Local-git/saperlipopette/tests/testthat") to review the change.
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
✖ | 1        1 | committed-to-wrong-branch                                                      
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Failure (test-committed-to-wrong-branch.R:6:3): exo_committed_to_wrong() works
Snapshot of code has changed:
old vs new
  Code
    gert::git_log(repo = path)[["commit"]]
  Output
-   [1] "83ee0e3cc5afed932cd9e3f2f34274c60bfe1166"
+   [1] "380f963522865ce2be3a06d9a611cf73e2e0b23a"
-   [2] "e48ac924412914278ed7d3ee6e82d0fe3122741a"
+   [2] "56591fc55e10052367efa3cea143b9b063f4d266"
-   [3] "e227ecc55e421f70b6e30602e6a2eee02aad42e0"
+   [3] "569711c966f498b8aa7a7554496e3a702d934568"
* Run testthat::snapshot_accept("committed-to-wrong-branch", "/home/alecr/Documents/Local-git/saperlipopette/tests/testthat") to accept the change.
* Run testthat::snapshot_review("committed-to-wrong-branch", "/home/alecr/Documents/Local-git/saperlipopette/tests/testthat") to review the change.
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
✖ | 1        1 | conflict                                                                       
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Failure (test-conflict.R:6:3): exo_conflict() works
Snapshot of code has changed:
old vs new
  Code
    gert::git_log(repo = path)[["commit"]]
  Output
-   [1] "5d871367c8a247a5e63bd0701d7bce830d1dc614"
+   [1] "d4f7a10710d1b61c9664303663b5fe467d9e2215"
-   [2] "2a61d9da6865eb7f7272c9f901f13c1da377a01e"
+   [2] "fe387b39814b24ba7ef653a0546b4b4796cd9357"
-   [3] "e227ecc55e421f70b6e30602e6a2eee02aad42e0"
+   [3] "f0a62988268a33177343cde2ad009aee53f107c1"
* Run testthat::snapshot_accept("conflict", "/home/alecr/Documents/Local-git/saperlipopette/tests/testthat") to accept the change.
* Run testthat::snapshot_review("conflict", "/home/alecr/Documents/Local-git/saperlipopette/tests/testthat") to review the change.
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
✖ | 1        0 | create-all [3.9s]                                                              
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Failure (test-create-all.R:5:3): create_all_exercises() works
Snapshot of code has changed:
     old                    | new                                   
 [3] Output                 | Output                 [3]            
 [4]                        |                        [4]            
 [5]   +-- bisect           |   +-- bisect           [5]            
 [6]   |   \-- R            -   |   +-- R            [6]            
 [7]   |       \-- script.R -   |   |   \-- script.R [7]            
                            -   |   \-- bisect.Rproj [8]            
 [8]   +-- blame            |   +-- blame            [9]            
 [9]   |   \-- R            -   |   +-- R            [10]           
[10]   |       \-- script.R -   |   |   \-- script.R [11]           
                            -   |   \-- blame.Rproj  [12]           
 ... ...                      ...                    and 11 more ...
     old                      | new                                               
[21]   |   \-- debugging      |   |   \-- debugging                [25]           
[22]   +-- committed-to-main  |   +-- committed-to-main            [26]           
[23]   |   +-- R              |   |   +-- R                        [27]           
[24]   |   \-- bla            -   |   +-- bla                      [28]           
                              -   |   \-- committed-to-main.Rproj  [29]           
[25]   +-- committed-to-wrong |   +-- committed-to-wrong           [30]           
[26]   |   +-- R              |   |   +-- R                        [31]           
[27]   |   +-- bla            |   |   +-- bla                      [32]           
                              -   |   +-- committed-to-wrong.Rproj [33]           
[28]   |   \-- fix.txt        |   |   \-- fix.txt                  [34]           
 ... ...                        ...                                and 56 more ...
* Run testthat::snapshot_accept("create-all", "/home/alecr/Documents/Local-git/saperlipopette/tests/testthat") to accept the change.
* Run testthat::snapshot_review("create-all", "/home/alecr/Documents/Local-git/saperlipopette/tests/testthat") to review the change.
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
✖ | 1        1 | debug [1.6s]                                                                   
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Failure (test-debug.R:6:3): exo_bisect() works
Snapshot of code has changed:
old vs new
  Code
    gert::git_log(repo = path)[["commit"]]
  Output
-     [1] "d1e99031240ba2b6a78117f09df1c3b7b089f41a"
+     [1] "affb2beec0c0da8ffc1238e0e47d6950d538ffa3"
-     [2] "f26c132d3ab725336f321b6f0c403022e0ad7372"
+     [2] "bd69e88b0e744e568a729831caac348fb50670af"
-     [3] "85cebcf1f5c19397a19a009747353d7246979c52"
+     [3] "78f61cce1b2949633cd2d6f8878af2d3fb3616f2"
-     [4] "978a4d7a52ce0c4e5a3f82f53fff6d804f4efeeb"
+     [4] "79a6ed2bb6ee936b1bb3a0b7e48c34400d06ce56"
-     [5] "2add1f6723f3d88c68999d97b3ffebe1fe119642"
+     [5] "2f5028c4d3a11a24fe2d87f041a4ea7df14f5ed0"
-     [6] "beb2fa1f91f2cc320c2c8da9ba295e72cf0b1021"
+     [6] "b7923e30e46f9e836be467ffefed23becb97de0e"
-     [7] "4113e395ef532fd197de37528c914af919a6d90a"
+     [7] "a57f764dc0489d422e866560bd82251eff6ed3c5"
and 93 more ...
* Run testthat::snapshot_accept("debug", "/home/alecr/Documents/Local-git/saperlipopette/tests/testthat") to accept the change.
* Run testthat::snapshot_review("debug", "/home/alecr/Documents/Local-git/saperlipopette/tests/testthat") to review the change.
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
✖ | 1        1 | edit-latest-message                                                            
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Failure (test-edit-latest-message.R:6:3): exo_latest_message() works
Snapshot of code has changed:
old vs new
  Code
    gert::git_log(repo = path)[["commit"]]
  Output
-   [1] "d3d35a17a880eee777868a5fbe99ce1bfe3b31bb"
+   [1] "6740f4094f9d80f2bf20cea36b16d329345b33d2"
-   [2] "e227ecc55e421f70b6e30602e6a2eee02aad42e0"
+   [2] "517cffaed99afdb2143fc9a408b08ac5ef5faca7"
* Run testthat::snapshot_accept("edit-latest-message", "/home/alecr/Documents/Local-git/saperlipopette/tests/testthat") to accept the change.
* Run testthat::snapshot_review("edit-latest-message", "/home/alecr/Documents/Local-git/saperlipopette/tests/testthat") to review the change.
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
✖ | 1        1 | log-deleted-file                                                               
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Failure (test-log-deleted-file.R:6:3): exo_log_deleted_file() works
Snapshot of code has changed:
old vs new
  Code
    gert::git_log(repo = path)[["commit"]]
  Output
-    [1] "8d49564daf69f7da3208dce5db26e832d52a01d1"
+    [1] "e48a98ca70738acccbdca3de1d3da01561c1058d"
-    [2] "b6af1dca46a09968c561b22af44ad35ee4ea413b"
+    [2] "b5fd33c3575b7a50f0c1ead29f54ea3eb5d3a0f9"
-    [3] "ab0ec48cd3306cc2a29341d84d634e0264a6b558"
+    [3] "0d0c4a4ce6f30ddc63bc79be178eb9cb9dcdf905"
-    [4] "f1e91f7e99f4783a778790512d7bf8cbdbe73436"
+    [4] "87c7a33e9d944ea4337e19952654447796f790cd"
-    [5] "5b9bce029eb8363b54e257ff3c27ccca0810f181"
+    [5] "f5598c92ed9f82fefc04030e5977cf7632ff5f08"
-    [6] "7b1ad57aae390d25d0f12b6b88a5e890eb0ffead"
+    [6] "ca0126a96d2373972b97c0927fb296a201ffeacb"
-    [7] "b6ba25ffa8b4f2302f17fb5bebe7f8305c5f7834"
+    [7] "038a6954ff7f626919ff369371669f1e80cf67e2"
and 8 more ...
* Run testthat::snapshot_accept("log-deleted-file", "/home/alecr/Documents/Local-git/saperlipopette/tests/testthat") to accept the change.
* Run testthat::snapshot_review("log-deleted-file", "/home/alecr/Documents/Local-git/saperlipopette/tests/testthat") to review the change.
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
✖ | 1        1 | log-deleted-line                                                               
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Failure (test-log-deleted-line.R:6:3): exo_log_deleted_line() works
Snapshot of code has changed:
old vs new
  Code
    gert::git_log(repo = path)[["commit"]]
  Output
-    [1] "9162b22638c61c25790b5c60da6034928bd084ee"
+    [1] "a166ab10bf643c7eeeb6746e976a74872c3d9f9e"
-    [2] "963cbe002216fc14feddac7927594f1a160df505"
+    [2] "9993ba4d7b248076755979968ae337768753f67c"
-    [3] "5e9ace09746de941c4b177dbf8ddffdb91071ce3"
+    [3] "e88bb306477fbfca519c94f6034bfc1c1422bfd7"
-    [4] "5ea923a3ab33fda78c073ab84b9e9276777b2fca"
+    [4] "608fd6a9782dde40c73ffcf4f6b81d9d375af2cc"
-    [5] "27b8c167ba1b06a1c1758e254cf43aa060021baa"
+    [5] "35eba4dfa498c2bbc3c53ddb0b3e6c618c11e621"
-    [6] "d1e464d9da59120d4e64f3beee884ab4197aed93"
+    [6] "4ff3594c93deddd6e5818bff155bfe9ce0e9aee0"
-    [7] "544d738b703fdbdc0511beba1f622ce893e6c818"
+    [7] "c5412c2428086c62d361aff84f5c564fa9c0bd65"
and 4 more ...
* Run testthat::snapshot_accept("log-deleted-line", "/home/alecr/Documents/Local-git/saperlipopette/tests/testthat") to accept the change.
* Run testthat::snapshot_review("log-deleted-line", "/home/alecr/Documents/Local-git/saperlipopette/tests/testthat") to review the change.
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Maximum number of failures exceeded; quitting.
ℹ Increase this number with (e.g.) testthat::set_max_fails(Inf) 
R: 
R: sessionInfo()
R version 4.5.2 (2025-10-31)
Platform: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Running under: Arch Linux

Matrix products: default
BLAS:   /usr/lib/libblas.so.3.12.0 
LAPACK: /usr/lib/liblapack.so.3.12.0  LAPACK version 3.12.0

locale:
 [1] LC_CTYPE=en_CA.UTF-8       LC_NUMERIC=C               LC_TIME=en_CA.UTF-8       
 [4] LC_COLLATE=en_CA.UTF-8     LC_MONETARY=en_CA.UTF-8    LC_MESSAGES=en_CA.UTF-8   
 [7] LC_PAPER=en_CA.UTF-8       LC_NAME=C                  LC_ADDRESS=C              
[10] LC_TELEPHONE=C
R: 
R: # Version of libgit2 installed:
R: # extra/libgit2 1:1.9.2-1

• Tests have a very similar structure for all the exercises. Tests check for 1) the filepath returned from the example function matches the expected filepath name (as in, does dir_create create a directory named as expected) and 2) the snapshot of git commit hashes returned from gert::git_log match the snapshot.

eg. test-edit-latest-message.R

rlang::local_options(cli.default_handler = function(msg) invisible(NULL))
parent_path <- withr::local_tempdir()
path <- exo_latest_message(parent_path = parent_path)
expect_identical(fs::path_file(path), "latest-message")
expect_snapshot(gert::git_log(repo = path)[["commit"]])

It seems that maybe this could be turned into a helper function that might make it simpler for future contributors with new lessons to easily reuse the same testing framework? Here's a quick draft below with an example in my fork of saperlipopette here.

tests/testthat/helper-test-exo.R

helper_test_exo <- function(fn, nm) {
  test_that(paste0(quote(fn), "() works"), {
    rlang::local_options(cli.default_handler = function(msg) invisible(NULL))
    parent_path <- withr::local_tempdir()
    path <- do.call(fn, list(parent_path = parent_path))
    expect_identical(fs::path_file(path), nm)
    expect_snapshot(gert::git_log(repo = path)[["commit"]])
  })
}

Thanks! Let me know what you think.

[maelle]

Thank you @robitalec!!

I'm seeing two different license related files: LICENSE and LICENSE.md.

Yes, one is for R (LICENSE) the other for GitHub-readability (LICENSE.md). That's what usethis::use_mit_license() creates. See also https://r-pkgs.org/license.html#key-files

We could use a bit more information - right now we see "Please open an issue for any larger change (new exercise for instance).", but what about recommendations for eg. filing bugs, asking for help, contributing smaller changes?

Thank you! I added a bit in a commit -- do you think that is enough or too little information? It's the first time I start a contributing guide from scratch as opposed to a standard template, maybe that's too minimalist. 😅

I edited the template to remove these two lines, they didn't seem to correspond to anything relevant:

I think this might be related to recent work by @mpadge to accomodate for packages contained in a subdirectory?

When we are ready to look for reviewers, could you edit the template to include the version number under "Version submitted"?

I've now updated this field but can increase the version again if I do more changes before you start looking for reviewers.

There are two code coverage badges in the README

Oops, updated now!

The tool that Claude wrote for keeping the vignette updated based on the paper in inst/. Is it possible you could just use the Includes syntax instead? This works when I check locally with pkgdown::build_site and a basic render. But I'm not sure if it would work/be accepted everywhere (eg. CRAN).

If I remember correctly that's what I first tried doing but the script does a bit more: changing header levels, copying the picture. Do you think that makes sense?

I see failing tests locally related to the testthat snapshots of gert::git_log hashes. These don't appear on the tests run through GitHub Actions, so I'm trying to figure them out. I've made sure my packages (gert, testthat) and version of libgit2 are updated. I see 1) mostly differences in Git hashes (eg. test-blame and test-committed-to-main) but also 2) some differences in test-create-all that might be due to snapshots not having RStudio Projects files, whereas my local tests generates them? Let me know what you think might be going on.

Oh yes you are right! I never run devtools::test() from my console so hadn't noticed. Once I did, I was able to reproduce the test failures. I have updated the code so that it never creates the RStudio project files when testing.

Tests have a very similar structure for all the exercises. Tests check for 1) the filepath returned from the example function matches the expected filepath name (as in, does dir_create create a directory named as expected) and 2) the snapshot of git commit hashes returned from gert::git_log match the snapshot.

Thank you for experimenting! I prefer seeing explicitly what's done in each test file even if that's repetitive so would prefer not to change but am happy to hear further reasons. 😉

[robitalec]

Yes, one is for R (LICENSE) the other for GitHub-readability (LICENSE.md). That's what usethis::use_mit_license() creates. See also https://r-pkgs.org/license.html#key-files

Thanks for explaining - I've somehow missed that setup in the past!

Thank you! I added a bit in a commit -- do you think that is enough or too little information? It's the first time I start a contributing guide from scratch as opposed to a standard template, maybe that's too minimalist. 😅

That looks good to me!

I've now updated this field but can increase the version again if I do more changes before you start looking for reviewers.

Thanks!

If I remember correctly that's what I first tried doing but the script does a bit more: changing header levels, copying the picture. Do you think that makes sense?

Yes, if those additional bits are needed, I think the script makes sense then.

Oh yes you are right! I never run devtools::test() from my console so hadn't noticed. Once I did, I was able to reproduce the test failures. I have updated the code so that it never creates the RStudio project files when testing.

Great, all tests are now passing on my system (with two skipped related to potools since I'm running Linux).

Thank you for experimenting! I prefer seeing explicitly what's done in each test file even if that's repetitive so would prefer not to change but am happy to hear further reasons. 😉

No pressure at all, it was just an idea. I understand why you'd want to see it written out explicitly in each test file as well.

Thanks for helping me with these, I'm going to start looking for reviewers now!

[robitalec]

@ropensci-review-bot seeking reviewers

[ropensci-review-bot]

Please add this badge to the README of your package repository:

[![Status at rOpenSci Software Peer Review](https://badges.ropensci.org/754_status.svg)](https://github.com/ropensci/software-review/issues/754)

Furthermore, if your package does not have a NEWS.md file yet, please create one to capture the changes made during the review process. See https://devguide.ropensci.org/releasing.html#news