Description:
I would like to request the addition of the null.ok = TRUE parameter to the checkmate::check_names function. This feature would allow for more concise and elegant input validation when checking if an object is either a list or NULL, and if it is a list, ensuring that it has specific names.
Current Limitation:
Currently, for example, the checkmate::check_list function supports the null.ok parameter, allowing us to check if an object is either a list or NULL. However, the checkmate::check_names function does not support the null.ok parameter. This limitation makes it challenging to perform both checks in a single assert call.
Proposed Usage:
With the proposed feature, the code could be simplified as follows:
foo <- function(x) {
checkmate::assert(
checkmate::check_list(x, null.ok = TRUE, names = "named"),
checkmate::check_names(names(x), must.include = c("a", "b"), null.ok = TRUE) # NOTE: `null.ok` currently not a supported argument!
)
# ...
}
Am I overlooking something, or what is your proposed usage? Thank you for considering this feature request.
Description:
I would like to request the addition of the
null.ok = TRUEparameter to thecheckmate::check_namesfunction. This feature would allow for more concise and elegant input validation when checking if an object is either a list orNULL, and if it is a list, ensuring that it has specific names.Current Limitation:
Currently, for example, the
checkmate::check_listfunction supports thenull.okparameter, allowing us to check if an object is either a list orNULL. However, thecheckmate::check_namesfunction does not support thenull.okparameter. This limitation makes it challenging to perform both checks in a singleassertcall.Proposed Usage:
With the proposed feature, the code could be simplified as follows:
Am I overlooking something, or what is your proposed usage? Thank you for considering this feature request.