The ggplot2 argument is linewidth -- should we instead go in the other direction to be consistent with the core plotting framework? #1204
strengejackeAnnotations
10 warnings
|
lint / lint:
R/plot.describe_distribution.R#L142
file=R/plot.describe_distribution.R,line=142,col=7,[if_not_else_linter] Prefer `if (A) x else y` to the less-readable `if (!A) y else x` in a simple if/else statement.
|
|
lint / lint:
R/plot.describe_distribution.R#L74
file=R/plot.describe_distribution.R,line=74,col=5,[object_overwrite_linter] 'data' is an exported object from package 'utils'. Avoid re-using such symbols.
|
|
lint / lint:
R/plot.describe_distribution.R#L70
file=R/plot.describe_distribution.R,line=70,col=3,[object_overwrite_linter] 'data' is an exported object from package 'utils'. Avoid re-using such symbols.
|
|
lint / lint:
R/plot.check_predictions.R#L301
file=R/plot.check_predictions.R,line=301,col=3,[function_argument_linter] Arguments without defaults should come before arguments with defaults.
|
|
lint / lint:
R/plot.check_distribution.R#L200
file=R/plot.check_distribution.R,line=200,col=5,[return_linter] Use implicit return behavior; explicit return() is not needed.
|
|
lint / lint:
R/plot.check_distribution.R#L198
file=R/plot.check_distribution.R,line=198,col=5,[return_linter] Use implicit return behavior; explicit return() is not needed.
|
|
lint / lint:
R/plot.check_distribution.R#L123
file=R/plot.check_distribution.R,line=123,col=5,[return_linter] Use implicit return behavior; explicit return() is not needed.
|
|
lint / lint:
R/plot.check_distribution.R#L121
file=R/plot.check_distribution.R,line=121,col=5,[return_linter] Use implicit return behavior; explicit return() is not needed.
|
|
lint / lint:
R/geom_from_list.R#L208
file=R/geom_from_list.R,line=208,col=3,[if_switch_linter] Prefer switch() statements over repeated if/else equality tests, e.g., switch(x, a = 1, b = 2) over if (x == "a") 1 else if (x == "b") 2.
|
|
lint / lint:
R/geom_from_list.R#L113
file=R/geom_from_list.R,line=113,col=1,[cyclocomp_linter] Reduce the cyclomatic complexity of this expression from 54 to at most 40. Consider replacing high-complexity sections like loops and branches with helper functions.
|