Decorators: Accepts new snapshot from testthat::test()

[averissimo]

Pull Request

Part of insightsengineering/teal#1371 (comment)

Changes description

• Tracks changes in the template code of the decorators feature branch
• Renames variables to be plot, table or (in case of multiple decoratable elements) <name>_plot and <name>_table

Workflow

Manually triggered: https://github.com/insightsengineering/teal.modules.clinical/actions/runs/12359120026

[shajoezhu]

sorry, where did this go?

[averissimo]

After the object is decorated.

See code in server function, where the expr = table is the step that "prints" the table.

Note that the objects now have a standardized name when possible (plot and table), allowing for easier re-use of the decorators.

teal.modules.clinical/R/tm_t_events_by_grade.R

Lines 1209 to 1218 in 8a9edd2

	table_renamed_q <- reactive({
	within(table_q(), table <- pruned_and_sorted_result)
	})
	decorated_table_q <- srv_decorate_teal_data(
	id = "decorator",
	data = table_renamed_q,
	decorators = select_decorators(decorators, "table"),
	expr = table
	)

[shajoezhu]

now I understand! thanks @averissimo . in the future, if we consider a series of post processing with tables, will this be captured in a list?

[averissimo]

I'm not sure I fully understand the question, do you mean:

1. Add this post-processing after the template generation and decoration?
2. As part of the decoration?
3. Other?

For 1. this can be done either on top of decorated_table_q with eval_code/within or via the argument expr that supports any kind of expression just like the within.

For 2. a list of decorators will allow for a series of post-processing applied to the respective object (table in this case).

[shajoezhu]

i meant 1. Thanks @averissimo

[m7pr]

Hey @averissimo the job failed https://github.com/insightsengineering/teal.modules.clinical/actions/runs/12359120026
becuase https://github.com/insightsengineering/teal.modules.clinical/actions/runs/12359120026/job/34491155253#step:42:110

'::' or ':::' import not declared from: ‘rlang’

Other than that this is excellent work!

[m7pr]

one R CMD CHECK note needs to be satisified to get this merged

[averissimo]

I'll fix the rlang issue on the feature branch, let's wait for @shajoezhu to reply here before merging this PR.

I'm so used to using rlang that didn't notice we removed that dependency from tmc

[shajoezhu]

lgtm! thanks @averissimo