Is there a clean solution for numbering lines in code chunks in R Markdown?
There is some relevant information here, it solves this problem for .Rnw files, however I'm looking for a solution for .Rmd files (with HTML output). Preferably the solution would provide continuous numbering within the document, instead of starting over at each code chunk. This would allow for referencing an earlier code chunk via a line number.
I am also looking for a solution that doesn't require repeating the code chunk (like here) since that seems error prone (inevitably there will be cases where one chunk gets updated and the other isn't).
Related
To preface this, I think my question is related to this, but it's not exactly the same: How to source R Markdown file like `source('myfile.r')`?
Basically, I perform most of my data cleaning and analysis in Rmarkdown files because the visual separation between chunks of code and my own comments on what should be done for the analysis/cleaning is very helpful to me. It also helps that within Rstudio if you run a table, df, then it'll display an interactive snippet of it in the document. This is all very helpful in complicated cleaning/analyses. So in other words, I'd like to develop in one R-Markdown file and write in another R-Markdown file. Splitting/writing the code into a source.R file is not ideal, unless there was a very automated and reproducible way to do it.
The issue is that for reports, I'd sometimes like to take specific objects that were generated from these lengthy data-cleaning and analyses files in Rmarkdown. For example, let's say that during my data-cleaning in Rmarkdown-file-1, there was a particular table that was giving me trouble problematic.df and that I'd like to call in my report or possibly perform further manipulations in my report (Rmarkdown-file-2).
So ultimately I think this is the question:
How can I call any arbitrary object generated at any arbitrary point of one Rmarkdown file in another Rmarkdown file?
Obviously, the above would be the ideal, but it sounds unreasonable, so perhaps this is a better question/request:
How can I call any arbitrary objects generated by the end of one Rmarkdown file in another Rmarkdown file?
Upon further reflection, my question might already be answered in the post I linked, but it's been a while since that question was posted and perhaps there are new solutions or perspectives on this issue.
I'm using Rmarkdown/Bookdown to write a paper/PDF document, which is an amazing tool #Yihui, thanks! Now I'm trying to include a table I have already put in LaTeX into the document by reading in this external .tex file. However, when knitting in RStudio with a \include{some-file.tex} or input{some-file.tex} in the body of the .Rmd outside of a chunk a LaTeX Error: Can be used only in preamble. is produced and the process stopped. I haven't found a way how to directly input through knit or otherwise into a chunk as well.
I found this question here: Rmarkdown v2, embed Latex document, although while the question is similar, there is no answer which would reflect how to input/include .tex-files into an .Rmd.
Why would I want this? Sometimes LaTeX tables offer more layout options than building directly in R, like for tables only with text rather than R-computed numbers. Also, when running models on a cluster, exporting results directly into .tex ready for compilation saves a lot of computation compared to have to open all these heavy .RData files just for getting the results into a PDF. Similarly, having sometimes multiple types of reports with different audiences, having the full R code in one main .Rmd file and integrating only the necessary results in other files reduces complexity by not having to redo all steps in each file newly. This way, I can keep one report with the full picture and do not have to check if I included every little change in various documents simultaneously.
So finally the question is how to get prepared .tex-Files into a .Rmd-document?
Thanks for your answers!
I am working on a LaTeX report template that automatically generates a beamer document, pulling in figures from specified directories and placing them one per slide.
Here is an example of the code that I am using for this, as a code chunk in my .Rnw document:
<<results='asis',echo=FALSE>>=
suppressPackageStartupMessages(library("Hmisc"))
# get the plots from the common directory
Barplots_dir<-"/home/figure/barplots"
Barplots_files<-dir(Barplots_dir)
# create a beamer slide for each plot
# use R to output LaTeX markup into the document
for(i in 1:length(Barplots_files)){
GroupingName<-gsub("_alignment_barplot.pdf", "", Barplots_files[i]) # strip this from the filename
file <- paste0(Barplots_dir,"/",Barplots_files[i]) # path to the figure
cat("\\subsubsection{", latexTranslate(GroupingName), "}\n", sep="") # don't forget you need double '\\' because one gets eaten by R !!
cat("\\begin{frame}{", latexTranslate(GroupingName), " Alignment Stats}\n", sep="")
cat("\\includegraphics[width=0.9\\linewidth,height=0.9\\textheight,keepaspectratio]{", file, "}\n", sep="")
cat("\\end{frame}\n\n")
}
#
However I recently came across this article by Yihui Xie which includes a remark about cat("\\includegraphics{}") being a bad idea. Is there a reason for this, and is there a better option?
To be clear, these figures are generated by other programs as part of a larger pipeline; generating them within the document is not an option, but I need the document to be able to dynamically find and insert them into the report. I know that there are some capabilities to do this directly from within LaTeX itself but cat'ing out the LaTeX markup I need seemed like an easier and more flexible task.
cat("\\includegraphics{}") is likely to be a bad idea if you are from the old Sweave world (where one might need to open a graphics device, draw a plot, close the device, and cat("\\includegraphics{}")). No kittens will be killed as long as you understand what you are doing. Your use case seems to be very reasonable to me, and I don't have a better approach.
I love knitr & rmarkdown, but I often find myself in situations where I have a lengthy report that takes some nontrivial amount of time to run. After it's generated, I notice my inevitable typos in text. However, re-knitting everything to just fix a couple typos (just in text, not code) takes a long time and seems avoidable. I was about to start taking a hack at developing my own solution to this, but I'm thinking it's the kind of thing that could already have a mature solution which would likely be more robust than the one I'd build.
I'm wondering if there is solution out there within knitr or third party that would allow me to edit just the text of my reports without rerunning code, generating plots and outputs etc. I know, I can simply edit the generated html text, but then those changes must be replicated in the R/Rmd code that generated it, or they get out of sync. I'm envisioning a function like this:
argument 1: the R/Rmd script with text edits (no code changes)... perhaps a warning is generated when code chunks change
argument 2: the html output file from the last time the R script in argument was knitted without the text edits.
return: the html report (argument 2) updated with the comments in the R/Rmd script (argument 1).
I use the cache option sometimes for large datasets. I toggle eval and echo on and off when developing if I'm just working on the text of my report. However, I'm looking for a function that would take care of all this for me, so one doesn't have to mess with the code and chunk options to make small edits to text.
Here's an interim solution that lets you retain the speed of making changes directly to the rendered text, but you have to do a little work after you're done making changes.
Assuming the following files:
input.knitr is the original Knitr file with text and code integrated.
output.html is the resulting HTML code that has been rendered by Knitr.
Consider making direct text edits to output.html and then running something like Meld visual merge tool:
meld output.html input.knitr
Then manually select the edits in output.html that are new and should be fixed in the original source input.knitr. Tools such as Meld do a pretty good job of aligning the texts so that the chunks and knitted output will appear as large "changes" that, in practice, you would ignore. You would focus on the small changes in the non-chunk sections.
I have a .Rnw document in which I include childs. The childs produce tables via the 'latex' command of the Hmisc library in R.
When I make changes in the child documents, these changes do not anymore change the pdf document. My first guess was to use the chunk option 'eval=TRUE', but this does not change anything. Then, I saw, that the tables are actually saved to a .tex file with same name as the .Rnw document. I deleted this file and after compilation with knitr I got an error:
Error: Latexmk: Could not find file documentname.tex.
I assume, this is not the way to do it. Now I am out of ideas what to do. I appreciate some help on my problem.
Best
Simon
Allright, when trying to construct a simple example, I actually found out, that neither the packages I included nor the nesting of child documents interfere with the compilation via knitr. The reason was a simple error in the low-level .Rnw document, where a Hmisc latex table had a label, that missed a closing speech mark.
This causes then the output pdf not to change - I assume, that in this case the already constructed .tex file is included instead of letting knitr recompile the .Rnw documents and this hasn't changed since the last compilation?
What I wonder about is the different format of the landscape ctable in the document. Using a simple knitr document just with \documentclass{article} produces well placed tables. In my document using a template for the JFE, I get a table that extends over the whole page and even in footnotesize it is far away from the great appearance in the simple document. There is only a margin of less than half a cm on the right and the left. Page size is the same: both US letter... Can I probably control that via knitr or only via resizebox?