Environmental problems using testthat - r

I have some delicate issues with environments that are currently manifesting themselves in my unit tests. My basic structure is this
I have a main function main that has many arguments
wrapper is a wrapper function (one of many) that pertains only to selected arguments of main
helper is an intermediate helper function that is used by all wrapper functions
I use eval and match.call() to move between wrappers and the main function smoothly. My issue now is that my tests work when I run them line by line, but not using test_that().
Here is a MWE that shows the problem. If you step through the lines in the test manually, the test passes. However, evaluating the whole test_that() chunk the test fails because one of the arguments can not be found.
library(testthat)
wrapper <- function(a, b) {
fun_call <- as.list(match.call())
ret <- helper(fun_call)
return(ret)
}
helper <- function(fun_call) {
fun_call[[1]] <- quote(main)
fun_call <- as.call(fun_call)
fun_eval <- eval(as.call(fun_call))
return(fun_eval)
}
main <- function(a, b, c = 1) {
ret <- list(a = a, b = b, c = c)
return(ret)
}
test_that("Test", {
a <- 1
b <- 2
x <- wrapper(a = a, b = b)
y <- list(a = 1, b = 2, c = 1)
expect_equal(x, y)
})
With quite some confidence, I suspect I need to modify the default environment used by eval (i.e. parent.frame()), but I am not sure how to do this.

You want to evaluate your call in your parent environment, not the local function environment. Change your helper to
helper <- function(fun_call) {
fun_call[[1]] <- quote(main)
fun_call <- as.call(fun_call)
fun_eval <- eval.parent(fun_call, n=2)
return(fun_eval)
}
This is assuming that helper is always called within wrapper which is called from somewhere else the parameters are defined.
It's not clear in this case that you really need all this non-standard evaulation. You might also consider a solution like
wrapper <- function(a, b) {
helper(mget(ls()))
}
helper <- function(params) {
do.call("main", params)
}
Here wrapper just bundles all it's parameters values into a list. Then you can just pass a list of parameters to helper and do.call will pass that list as parameters to your main function. This will evaluate the parameters of wrapper when you call it do you don't have to worry about the execution evironment.

Related

How to pass a parameter name as an argument to a function

I understand this title may not make any sense. I searched everywhere but couldn't find an answer. What I'm trying to do is make a function that will take a parameter name for another function, a vector, and then keep calling that function with the parameter value equal to every item in the vector.
For simplicity's sake I'm not dealing with a vector below but just a single integer.
tuner <- function(param, a, ...) {
myfunction(param = a, ...)
}
and the code would effectively just run
myfunction(param = a)
I can't get this to work! The code actually runs but the resulting call completely ignores the parameter I put in and just runs
myfunction()
instead. Any solutions?
You can't really treat parameter names as variables that need to be evaluated in R. Onw work around would be to build a list of parameters and then pass that to do.call. For eample
myfunction <- function(x=1, y=5) {
x+y
}
tuner <- function(param, a, ...) {
do.call("myfunction", c(setNames(list(a), param), list(...)))
}
tuner("x", 100)
# [1] 105
tuner("y", 100)
# [1] 101
tuner("y", 100, 2)
# [1] 102
Another way using rlang would be
library(rlang)
tuner <- function(param, a, ...) {
args <- exprs(!!param := a, ...)
eval_tidy(expr(myfunction(!!!args)))
}
which would give the same results.

curve3d can't find local function "fn"

I'm trying to use the curve3d function in the emdbook-package to create a contour plot of a function defined locally inside another function as shown in the following minimal example:
library(emdbook)
testcurve3d <- function(a) {
fn <- function(x,y) {
x*y*a
}
curve3d(fn(x,y))
}
Unexpectedly, this generates the error
> testcurve3d(2)
Error in fn(x, y) : could not find function "fn"
whereas the same idea works fine with the more basic curve function of the base-package:
testcurve <- function(a) {
fn <- function(x) {
x*a
}
curve(a*x)
}
testcurve(2)
The question is how curve3d can be rewritten such that it behaves as expected.
You can temporarily attach the function environment to the search path to get it to work:
testcurve3d <- function(a) {
fn <- function(x,y) {
x*y*a
}
e <- environment()
attach(e)
curve3d(fn(x,y))
detach(e)
}
Analysis
The problem comes from this line in curve3d:
eval(expr, envir = env, enclos = parent.frame(2))
At this point, we appear to be 10 frames deep, and fn is defined in parent.frame(8). So you can edit the line in curve3d to use that, but I'm not sure how robust this is. Perhaps parent.frame(sys.nframe()-2) might be more robust, but as ?sys.parent warns there can be some strange things going on:
Strictly, sys.parent and parent.frame refer to the context of the
parent interpreted function. So internal functions (which may or may
not set contexts and so may or may not appear on the call stack) may
not be counted, and S3 methods can also do surprising things.
Beware of the effect of lazy evaluation: these two functions look at
the call stack at the time they are evaluated, not at the time they
are called. Passing calls to them as function arguments is unlikely to
be a good idea.
The eval - parse solution bypasses some worries about variable scope. This passes the value of both the variable and function directly as opposed to passing the variable or function names.
library(emdbook)
testcurve3d <- function(a) {
fn <- eval(parse(text = paste0(
"function(x, y) {",
"x*y*", a,
"}"
)))
eval(parse(text = paste0(
"curve3d(", deparse(fn)[3], ")"
)))
}
testcurve3d(2)
I have found other solution that I do not like very much, but maybe it will help you.
You can create the function fn how a call object and eval this in curve3d:
fn <- quote((function(x, y) {x*y*a})(x, y))
eval(call("curve3d", fn))
Inside of the other function, the continuous problem exists, a must be in the global environment, but it is can fix with substitute.
Example:
testcurve3d <- function(a) {
fn <- substitute((function(x, y) {
c <- cos(a*pi*x)
s <- sin(a*pi*y/3)
return(c + s)
})(x, y), list(a = a))
eval(call("curve3d", fn, zlab = "fn"))
}
par(mfrow = c(1, 2))
testcurve3d(2)
testcurve3d(5)

Allowing R functions to directly alter the parent environment

I'm trying to figure out how to allow a function to directly alter or create variables in its parent environment, whether the parent environment is the global environment or another function.
For example if I have a function
my_fun <- function(){
a <- 1
}
I would like a call to my_fun() to produce the same results as doing a <- 1.
I know that one way to do this is by using parent.frame as per below but I would prefer a method that doesn't involve rewriting every variable assignment.
my_fun <- function(){
env = parent.frame()
env$a <- 1
}
Try with:
g <- function(env = parent.frame()) with(env, { b <- 1 })
g()
b
## [1] 1
Note that normally it is preferable to pass the variables as return values rather than directly create them in the parent frame. If you have many variables to return you can always return them in a list, e.g. h <- function() list(a = 1, b = 2); result <- h() Now result$a and result$b have the values of a and b.
Also see Function returning more than one value.

Anonymous passing of variables from current environment to subfunction calls

The function testfun1, defined below, does what I want it to do. (For the reasoning of all this, see the background info below the code example.) The question I wanted to ask you is why what I tried in testfun2 doesn't work. To me, both appear to be doing the exact same thing. As shown by the print in testfun2, the evaluation of the helper function inside testfun2 takes place in the correct environment, but the variables from the main function environment get magically passed to the helper function in testfun1, but not in testfun2. Does anyone of you know why?
helpfun <- function(){
x <- x^2 + y^2
}
testfun1 <- function(x,y){
xy <- x*y
environment(helpfun) <- sys.frame(sys.nframe())
x <- eval(as.call(c(as.symbol("helpfun"))))
return(list(x=x,xy=xy))
}
testfun1(x = 2,y = 1:3)
## works as intended
eval.here <- function(fun){
environment(fun) <- parent.frame()
print(environment(fun))
eval(as.call(c(as.symbol(fun))))
}
testfun2 <- function(x,y){
print(sys.frame(sys.nframe()))
xy <- x*y
x <- eval.here("helpfun")
return(list(x=x,xy=xy))
}
testfun2(x = 2,y = 1:3)
## helpfun can't find variable 'x' despite having the same environment as in testfun1...
Background info: I have a large R code in which I want to call helperfunctions inside my main function. They alter variables of the main function environment. The purpose of all this is mainly to unclutter my code. (Main function code is currently over 2000 lines, with many calls to various helperfunctions which themselves are 40-150 lines long...)
Note that the number of arguments to my helper functions is very high, so that the traditional explicit passing of function arguments ( "helpfun(arg1 = arg1, arg2 = arg2, ... , arg50 = arg50)") would be cumbersome and doesnt yield the uncluttering of the code that I am aiming for. Therefore, I need to pass the variables from the parent frame to the helper functions anonymously.
Use this instead:
eval.here <- function(fun){
fun <- get(fun)
environment(fun) <- parent.frame()
print(environment(fun))
fun()
}
Result:
> testfun2(x = 2,y = 1:3)
<environment: 0x0000000013da47a8>
<environment: 0x0000000013da47a8>
$x
[1] 5 8 13
$xy
[1] 2 4 6

R Cross Validation

I'm doing cross validation. So I wanted to split data into 10 folds. Somebody has post following code.
f_K_fold <- function(Nobs,K=10){
rs <- runif(Nobs)
id <- seq(Nobs)[order(rs)]
k <- as.integer(Nobs * seq(1, K-1) / K)
k <- matrix(c(0, rep(k, each=2), Nobs), ncol = 2, byrow = TRUE)
k[,1] <- k[,1]+1
l <- lapply(seq.int(K), function(x, k, d)
list(train=d[!(seq(d) %in% seq(k[x, 1],k[x, 2]))],
test=d[seq(k[x,1],k[x,2])]),
k=k,d=id)
return(l)
}
however I don't really understand what the lapply doing. Could someone explain to a newbie? Appreciate it.
It's really unfortunate that the code folding in this example is horrible, since aving properly formatted code can aid in understanding the code and catching mistakes.
The last three lines can be viewed as an anonymous function passed to lapply. lapply in essence "climbs" a list and for each list element, applies that (anonymous) function. In the example below, I've disambiguated the lines into a not so anonymous function and a call to lapply.
notSoanonymousFunction <- function(x, k, d) {
list(train = d[!(seq(d) %in% seq(k[x,1],k[x,2]))],
test = d[seq(k[x,1],k[x,2])])
}
l <- lapply(seq.int(K), FUN = notSoanonymousFunction, k = k, d = id)
If you look at ?lapply, you'll notice that there are no k or d arguments. However, these arguments do belong to our notSoanonymousFunction, and lapply takes it in via the ... argument.
As a mental exercise for you, I will show you one more trick how to learn what the function is doing. If you need to see what is happening inside the function, place a browser() call inside and run it. In your case, this would look like this:
notSoanonymousFunction <- function(x, k, d) {
browser()
list(train = d[!(seq(d) %in% seq(k[x,1],k[x,2]))],
test = d[seq(k[x,1],k[x,2])])
}
Once you run this, your console should say something along the lines of
Browser[1] >
You are now effectively inside the function. You can navigate to next line by typing n, running the whole chunk by c and quitting the browser all together, by pressing Q (see ?browser()). You can view and manipulate objects ad libidum. You can try by checking your workspace with ls() to see which objects are inside the function. You can bet your family farm that there will be objects x, k and d.

Resources