[Gretl-devel] Re: stricter options syntax for "plot" in 2024a?
On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 3:58 PM Sven Schreiber
<sven.schreiber(a)fu-berlin.de> wrote:
Am 08.05.2024 um 19:49 schrieb Cottrell, Allin:
> On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 11:32 AM Sven Schreiber
> <sven.schreiber(a)fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>> I'm puzzled by the fact that the sample script of the LocalProjection
>> package produces an error "invalid option --time-series". And indeed
>> that option is appended to a "plot" command, which is not supported
as
>> per the doc.
>>
>> However, the package was moderated in August, and I'm assuming that the
>> sample script ran fine at that time. So, has something changed in gretl
>> since then? (Either 2024a, or 2023c, or post-2024a.) Or actually, I tend
>> to think that it still worked around March or so.
> Yes, it stopped working after March 29.
>
> I've checked all the gfns, and LocalProjection is the only one to
> append an option to the first line of a plot block. I can't find any
> that attach options to "end plot" other than the ones that are
> officially recognized for that context. I don't think that we should
> add a workaround for the usage in LocalProjection.
Agreed, this needs to be fixed in the package. However, from the
timeline of the release of gretl 2024a on April 5th, it would mean that
the package should have failed already in the run-up to the release. My
question then is, why didn't we notice? I thought it's a standard part
of the testing parcours to check the sample scripts of all packages.
You're right. I'm afraid there was a testing failure in this case. All
the gfns had been tested probably a day before the March 29 change,
and at the time it didn't seem that anything "significant" had changed
between then and the April 5 release. But that's a risky assumption,
and not one I'll make in future. Obviously, it would be good if I were
not the only person testing all the gfns' sample scripts in the run-up
to a release.
Allin