Better document run_test.r

[jdblischak]

Description

This is a documentation-only PR to better advertise the existence of run_test.r. Most of the documentation only refers to .bat, .sh, and .py, with the occasional reference to .pl. Looking through the entire conda-forge org, I found zero instances of run_test.r; whereas, I found 329 instances of the better documented run_test.py.

I had to do a lot of digging to convince myself that it should work:

• PR to fix run_test.r fix run_test.r test files with R #1869
• Looking through the source code:
  • It has to be lowercase .r (R scripts are conventionally .R)
    

    conda-build/conda_build/build.py

    Line 3143 in 12fc37c

    test_file=join(metadata.config.test_dir, "run_test.r"),

  • I think it will only be run for R recipes. I'm less certain about this, because I had trouble finding where the analogous pl_files and lua_files were defined, so this might not be true
    

    conda-build/conda_build/post.py

    Line 761 in 12fc37c

    r_files = {file for file in prec["files"] if "lib/R/library" in file}

At minimum I know run_test.r will work with R recipes, since I just recently added it to r-git2r-feedstock in conda-forge/r-git2r-feedstock@f9d4ff1

Checklist - did you ...

• Add a file to the news directory (using the template) for the next release's release notes?
• Add / update necessary tests?
• Add / update outdated documentation?

[codspeed-hq]

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #5479 will not alter performance

_{Comparing jdblischak:run_test.r (e7277e1) with main (0ef3749)}

Summary

✅ 5 untouched benchmarks

[jdblischak]

@beeankha is there any interest in reviewing this documentation-only PR? I see that you keep merging in main, but this PR doesn't touch the code, so it's not going to make a difference in the CI checks.

[beeankha]

Hi @jdblischak thank you for your patience! I'm actively getting some opinions on this addition to see if it's OK to merge; aiming to get it approved and merged before the end of this week, pending CI tests passing (not sure yet what the test failures are indicating, but I will be looking into those in the next few days as well).

[kathatherine]

Thanks so much for helping to improve our documentation! I'll approve once the tests run green.

[kathatherine]

@beeankha I know this is just a doc update and it shouldn't affect the CI tests (and also you approved it). Is that failing test a known issue?

[beeankha]

@beeankha I know this is just a doc update and it shouldn't affect the CI tests (and also you approved it). Is that failing test a known issue?

The previously-failing tests were a known issue that have been resolved, and now we're just dealing with some CI infrastructure hiccups (i.e. network errors vs test failures). The latest re-run should hopefully come back all green.

[kathatherine]

ty!