Feature Request: Can we make filter_add like filter ?

[bms63]

Feature Idea

can we make filter_add like filter ?

Relevant Input

Relevant Output

No response

Reproducible Example/Pseudo Code

No response

[bms63]

@ddsjoberg is this one possible for us?

[ddsjoberg]

We can! We'd just need to capture the input as an quosure, and pass it to dplyr::filter() and rely on it for the error messaging.

We can still supplement the error message with admiral context using a variation on the code below:

testing_filter <- function(data, filter_expr) {
  filter_expr <- rlang::enquo(filter_expr)
  
  tryCatch(
    dplyr::filter(data, !!filter_expr),
    error = \(e) {
      cli::cli_abort(
        c("There was an error in {.arg filter_expr}. See messaging below:",
           x = conditionMessage(e))
      )
    }
  )
}

testing_filter(mtcars, filter_expr = not_a_proper_filter_condition)
#> Error in `value[[3L]]()`:
#> ! There was an error in `filter_expr`. See messaging below:
#> ✖ ℹ In argument: `not_a_proper_filter_condition`. Caused by error: ! object
#>   'not_a_proper_filter_condition' not found

^{Created on 2024-05-31 with reprex v2.1.0}

[bms63]

@bundfussr @zdz2101 @millerg23 @kaz462 @sadchla-codes phase 2 of error messaging?

[sadchla-codes]

@bundfussr @zdz2101 @millerg23 @kaz462 @sadchla-codes phase 2 of error messaging?

count me in!

[bundfussr]

That's definitely something we should improve. We could implement an apply_filter() function (similar to process_set_values_to()) which applies the filter, catches errors, and reissues the error message with references to the arguments/objects the user has specified.

We should also check if we have other cases where we pass user input to dplyr functions and need to catch errors.

[bundfussr]

I think we can't catch the "unexpected '=' in" error because it is issued when the call is parsed. I.e., the function is not called if it occurs.