Module update resorts to old package

[WolfgangLenhard]

Hi there,
I am having problems with revising the module cNORMj. I noticed, it does not work properly anymore with newer versions of jamovi. And the underlying cNORM package made huge progress as well. I thus wanted to prepare a revised version, but jvmtools always draws an old version of cNORM. The old version used lattice for plotting, which causes problems, the new one is based on ggplot2.

I specified the following packages in the DESCRIPTION (leaps and ggplot2 are imports from cNORM):

Code: Select all

Imports: jmvcore (>= 2.6.0), R6, leaps (>= 3.1), ggplot2 (>= 3.5.1), cNORM (>= 3.3.0)

This is how the NAMESPACE looks like:

Code: Select all

exportPattern("^[[:alpha:]]+")
import(ggplot2)

I do not know, which cNORM version is used in the compiled module, but based on the output and since it includes latticeExtra, it must be a pre 3.0 version of cNORM. Adding cNORM to the NAMESPACE leads to the following error:

Code: Select all

Error in loadNamespace(i, c(lib.loc, .libPaths()), versionCheck = vI[[i]]) : 
  namespace 'cNORM' 3.1.0 is being loaded, but >= 3.3.0 is required
Calls: <Anonymous> ... withCallingHandlers -> loadNamespace -> namespaceImport -> loadNamespace
Execution halted
ERROR: lazy loading failed for package 'cNORMj'

All packages have been updated. packageVersion("cNORM") return 3.3.1. I checked the package library in R - all packages are uptodate. Am I missing something?

Thanks and with best regards,
Wolfgang

[jonathon]

hi wolfgang,

each jamovi series installs packages based on a snapshot, i.e. the package versions are frozen to prevent breaking changes. the 2.6 series is based on a 2024-08-07 snapshot ... taking a look at the archives, it looks like 3.1 was indeed the version when the 2024-08-07 snapshot was taken.

https://cran.r-project.org/src/contrib/Archive/cNORM/

we update the snapshot every 6-12 months ... but 2024-08-07 is actually a pretty recent snapshot, so we're not intending on bringing it forward any time soon.

there's not really a good solution here unfortunately.

jonathon

[WolfgangLenhard]

Dear Jonathan,
many thanks for the information. I will then just wait for the next snapshot, nonetheless.

Best regards,
Wolfgang