-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Last obs before exposure flag and baseline flag #49
Last obs before exposure flag and baseline flag #49
Conversation
Hi @rammprasad: @kamilsi asked for my review too but I noticed you pushed a few commits just an hour ago. Do you intend to make further changes until tomorrow's meeting or may look into it? |
This is not ready for review. I have requested Kamil to look at my changes, replace the assertions, and add a test case. We will try and send it out for review tomorrow. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Working as expected. REady for second review.
@kamilsi - this is working as expected. I made minor tweaks. Can you resolve the merge conflicts and prepare it for a second review and merge? |
Merge branch 'main' into 18-last-obs-before-exposure-flag-and-baseline-flag # Conflicts: # NAMESPACE
I have fixed a few minor items. Once this PR is approved, we can address the issues below.
|
@ShiyuC @ramiromagno - Ready for your approval |
I'm getting this check message about potential spelling errors:
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks Ram! I’m ooo this afternoon but I’m happy to give the approval now as I saw my comments are resolved. If another review is needed, I’ll come back this evening to do it.
I will address this. We now have even more
|
Edgar: I was getting that too earlier but no longer with the most recent
version of the code. Have you pulled meanwhile?
…On Thu, 20 Jun 2024, 17:07 edgar-manukyan, ***@***.***> wrote:
I'm getting this check message about potential spelling errors:
< Potential spelling errors:
< WORD FOUND IN
< RFSTDTC derive_blfl.Rd:27
< RFXSTDTC derive_blfl.Rd:28
< TPT derive_blfl.Rd:35
< pre derive_blfl.Rd:77
< timpoints derive_blfl.Rd:35
< varaible derive_blfl.Rd:19
< xxTPT derive_blfl.Rd:73
< If these are false positive, run `spelling::update_wordlist()`.All Done!
I will address this.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#49 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEXRG4DVVRP6M5Y7242CIATZIL425AVCNFSM6AAAAABHNGLO36VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCOBRGA2TQMRUHE>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
@ramiromagno, correct, I pulled and I got even more spelling mistakes, will push shortly. |
@ramiromagno, sorry for confusion, I was fixing in the |
Now I switched to
|
Have you pulled? :) because those spelling issues should have been fixed by
now...
…On Thu, 20 Jun 2024, 17:26 edgar-manukyan, ***@***.***> wrote:
Now I switched to 18-last-obs-before-exposure-flag-and-baseline-flag and
I see the following and will push shortly
> spelling::spell_check_package()
WORD FOUND IN
CMGRPID cnd_df.Rmd:49
CMTRT cnd_df.Rmd:49
eCRF algorithms.Rmd:15
study_sdtm_spec.Rmd:44,55,58,58,61
eDT algorithms.Rmd:15
study_sdtm_spec.Rmd:44,55,71,73
MDR algorithms.Rmd:24
study_sdtm_spec.Rmd:40
pre derive_blfl.Rd:77
algorithms.Rmd:24
px algorithms.Rmd:34,211
RFSTDTC derive_blfl.Rd:27
RFXSTDTC derive_blfl.Rd:28
timpoints derive_blfl.Rd:35
TPT derive_blfl.Rd:35
varaible derive_blfl.Rd:19
xxTPT derive_blfl.Rd:73
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#49 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEXRG4FT3EGGQBWGJ5ZOGO3ZIL7DPAVCNFSM6AAAAABHNGLO36VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCOBRGA4TGMRTGQ>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
@ramiromagno, the spellings should be good now. Can you please approve? |
I pulled and there were few findings, I fixed those and added the words from the #56 as well. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
All good.
I will fix the conflicts |
@rammprasad, please verify the functionality of the new code additions. The existing examples confirm basic operations, but I was unable to fully test the baseline visit logic due to unmarked baseline visits in the study configuration file. Your insights or additional test cases would be helpful.