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.
-
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