Replies: 11 comments 2 replies
-
Way ahead of you, done on refactor branch.
Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Could you please elaborate more? In my example I want to do the following: I see nothing wrong right now in the above. UPDATE: I made a mistake and updated snippets to use |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
What you should do is either or |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I did exactly this not to be blocked but I feel it would be a good enhancements to avoid this and address this in datanames setter instead. It's much easier and more convenient for the app developer. The use case I am facing is that I want to use teal.modules.clinical which has uppercase datanames hardcoded. Hence option A is not really feasible and I need to stick with B. Now I don't really want to alter my data loading code (everything what's in Other than that I also see the requirement of dataname to be identical with object name as probably too strict. I cannot find a good reason why |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
The purpose of It is not a label, it is a specification. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Thank you for the explanation. Now I think I understand what is happening and I have a bad conclusion (please correct me if I made a mistake in my thinking). To me we have made a non-backwards compatible change (luckily not released yet) with regard to the change of the meaning of a "datanames". (I think now) I understand what's on the main branch and I do agree. But it seems that we have applied a new (more technical) responsibility on the business field / entity and I think it's wrong. It might happen that this is carried forward to the teal.slice and then to the modules. In particular: Please tell me what's your view on that. Maybe everything is what it should be but then we still need to make it clear in the release notes. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Note that the Also, |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I think
However, I personally think that previous design was even more confusing. In some internal operations there I admit, that specifying data <- teal_data() |> within(adsl = teal.data::rADSL)
datanames(data)
# character(0) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Thanks Dawid. I was aware that I could still do I think that with a (small?) change in datanames setter we can address this problem and be meaning backwards compatible and also be compatible with all the upstream functionalities. How about the following (pseudo-code): Then we could support the following: Please take that into consideration in the upcoming discussions. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I have yet another idea: to set object attribute (base R syntax or custom wrapper) and add support of this in the filter panel This is independent (*) on (*) It might be dependent because |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Great discussion! Just want to bring your attention to this feature request https://github.com/insightsengineering/teal/issues/900, which is very relevant to what's been discussed here. Distinction between what we consider to be |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Created on 2023-12-04 with reprex v2.0.2
We probably need to enable a dict / named character vector as an argument as a new datanames.
Also - please enhance error message. We should return not match found type of thing instead.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions