Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Allow multiple column computations in data masking slides #235

Closed
brookslogan opened this issue Oct 21, 2022 · 4 comments
Closed

Allow multiple column computations in data masking slides #235

brookslogan opened this issue Oct 21, 2022 · 4 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request op-semantics Operational semantics; many potentially breaking changes here P2 low priority

Comments

@brookslogan
Copy link
Contributor

Currently, only a single data masking expression can be fed into epi[x]_slide; e.g., trying to compute 7davs of two signals simultaneously requires using a function/formula f or as_list_col=FALSE. (Plus, the evaluation environment(s) for the data masking expression might not quite be correct, and as_list_col=FALSE on a single data masking input doesn't match dplyr patterns, plus adds a name prefix that is very likely unwanted for the tidyeval case and maybe in general.) Allow multiple data masking expressions to be provided, and make sure to pass appropriate environments. Maybe give some extra thought to make sure dplyr::cur_* functions work properly, although note these caveats.

@brookslogan brookslogan added enhancement New feature or request P2 low priority op-semantics Operational semantics; many potentially breaking changes here labels Oct 21, 2022
@brookslogan
Copy link
Contributor Author

brookslogan commented Mar 24, 2023

  • Check, e.g., advanced.Rmd to remove potential references to epix_slide outputting one row "for element/row output from calls to f".

@brookslogan
Copy link
Contributor Author

brookslogan commented May 24, 2023

  • Look at ?as_data_mask, specifically the mention of lst, which probably applies here as well

@dshemetov
Copy link
Contributor

This is done as of #477 and possibly earlier @brookslogan ?

@brookslogan
Copy link
Contributor Author

#477 sounds right for the multiple column computations; row requirements were relaxed earlier and it looks like the docs were updated already.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request op-semantics Operational semantics; many potentially breaking changes here P2 low priority
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants