Translate messages into french #196
Conversation
Thanks @bahadzie for the review |
|
This pull request:
(Note that results may be inacurrate if you branched from an outdated version of the target branch.) |
|
This pull request:
(Note that results may be inacurrate if you branched from an outdated version of the target branch.) |
|
This pull request:
(Note that results may be inacurrate if you branched from an outdated version of the target branch.) |
…m main functions instead
|
This pull request:
(Note that results may be inacurrate if you branched from an outdated version of the target branch.) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for your work here. cleanepi will be our first package to provide message in French 🎉
I have left a number of comments but I could not understand all the changes made here. In particular, it is not always clear to me if changes that are not part of the stated scope of the PR & the NEWS.md bullets are accidents or intended changes. I would strongly recommend you do a self-review of this PR as well to:
- verify you only committed changes you wanted to implement
- all the changes made here are reflected in the NEWS
| tr_("Unrecognised column names specified in {.emph rename}."), | ||
| i = tr_("Make sure that the columns to be renamed are part of the input data."), # nolint: line_length_linter | ||
| i = tr_("To rename columns, use: {.emph rename = c(new_name1 = 'old_name1', new_name2 = 'old_name2')}.") # nolint: line_length_linter | ||
| ), call = NULL) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
call = NULL is not specified in the other files, is there a specific reason it's needed here?
If I remember correctly, cli is much better than base R at displaying where the error happened so using the default is likely what we want here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The idea was to set call = NULL in main function and use the default behaviour in internal functions. This is because the main functions are documented and explained in details in the vignette.
I will remove this to harmonise with the other messages.
| @@ -73,15 +96,24 @@ detect_to_numeric_columns <- function(scan_res) { | |||
| values <- values[values > 0L] | |||
| values <- values[names(values) != "missing"] | |||
| if (setequal(names(values), c("numeric", "character"))) { | |||
| if (values[["numeric"]] > (2 * values[["character"]])) { | |||
| if (values[["character"]] <= (2 * values[["numeric"]])) { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This goes beyond the stated scope of the PR so double checking it is a conscious desired change and not a typo that crept in.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I realised that the previous expression was making it difficult to send a meaningful note the user. After several twists, I decided to modify the expression and make sure to send a simple and clear message to the user.
Yes, this is beyond the scope of the PR but it was inline with improving the clarity of the messages sent to the user.
Changes in this PR are related to: