Remote zips are now supported

[peterdesmet]

We had a test that expects an error for when reading remote zips (based on this comment in readr). Seems like that is supported now, not because of change in readr, but in vroom: https://github.com/tidyverse/vroom/releases/tag/v1.7.0

This update would have thrown errors on CRAN, but it has skip_if_offline(). Still, best to remove it for our CI/CD.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 100.00%. Comparing base (a608748) to head (3ddaddd).
⚠️ Report is 7 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##              main      #291   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%           
=========================================
  Files           23        23           
  Lines          650       650           
=========================================
  Hits           650       650           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[peterdesmet]

ubuntu-latest (3.6.0) fails, because that one uses vroom 1.6.5 which does not support remote zips yet. The other actions use vroom 1.7.0. We don't directly import vroom, so we don't set vroom >= 1.7.0. Should we do that or will these problems resolve themselves automatically?

@PietrH, any advice?

[PietrH]

ubuntu-latest (3.6.0) fails, because that one uses vroom 1.6.5 which does not support remote zips yet. The other actions use vroom 1.7.0. We don't directly import vroom, so we don't set vroom >= 1.7.0. Should we do that or will these problems resolve themselves automatically?

@PietrH, any advice?

Vroom currently enforces an indirect dependency of R>4.1 on frictionless-r: https://github.com/tidyverse/vroom/blob/cd07f44dc51ddcb0795ccda84c814c8af75668df/DESCRIPTION#L28-L29

So while there are a few options to get around this test failure, it's probably most defensive/easiest to increase the minimum R requirement of frictionless-r.

If you don't want to do this, I'm afraid we'll have to implement some sort of fallback for R 3.6 to download and read from disk instead.

[peterdesmet]

Updated to R > 4.1.0. All tests pass now. @PietrH can you review?

[PietrH]

Looks good! 👍

Minor nitpick: we could consider requiring vroom 1.3.0 as a minimum. It's possible (but unlikely) for a user to update frictionless-r, but not keeping an older version of vroom that they had installed already.

It's also possible to step around this by using rlang::check_installed("vroom", version = "1.3.0"), you could even do this conditionally just in case an archive is read. That way you keep supporting older versions (of both R and vroom). Seems like a hassle though.

Personally I think we should either require vroom 1.3.0, or just count on users keeping a relatively updated R library.

[peterdesmet]

Yeah, I agree that working conditionally is too much of a hassle.

Also, I don't think vroom >= 1.3.0 is necessary. Users who don't update will experience the same behaviour as before (remote zips are not supported, a meaningful error is shown). The R >= 4.1.0 requirement is mainly important for our CI.