From rossbennett34 at gmail.com Wed Apr 2 18:00:59 2014 From: rossbennett34 at gmail.com (Ross Bennett) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 09:00:59 -0700 Subject: [GSoC-PortA] Finishing Touches to PortfolioAnalytics In-Reply-To: <530B9A74.4020609@braverock.com> References: <000001cf205b$c082bce0$418836a0$@comcast.net> <52F1E846.9040004@braverock.com>

<00e101cf2e6c$5c3952c0$14abf840$@comcast.net> <530B9A74.4020609@braverock.com> Message-ID: I sent an email to R-Forge at R-Project.org in the beginning of March and have yet to hear back so I sent a follow up email on Monday. I spent some time earlier in the week trying to figure out where this error is coming from and still am unable to replicate the error we are getting on R-Forge. I heard back from someone yesterday, so hopefully we can get this taken care of. I suppose an option is to leave the .Rnw files in the vignettes/ folder, move the .pdf files to inst/doc/ and add 'BuildVignettes: false' to the DESCRIPTION file. Ross On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Brian G. Peterson wrote: > I'm guessing the vignettes might just take too long for R-Forge. We > should ask them to see if they have any other data. I had no trouble > building it here from the command line and RStudio. > > Brian > > > On 02/24/2014 11:23 AM, Ross Bennett wrote: > >> All, >> >> PortfolioAnalytics is not building on R-forge and part of the error >> message is shown below. >> >> Error: processing vignette 'risk_budget_optimization.Rnw' failed with >> diagnostics: >> subscript out of bounds >> Execution halted >> Run time: 437.89 seconds. >> >> However, when I run R CMD Check, the R code in the vignettes runs >> successfully so I am not sure how to address this error or if there is >> something else I am missing. I also tried building the vignette in >> Rstudio with the 'compile pdf' button and it compiled successfully. For >> your reference, I am attaching the 00check.log file. >> >> Ross >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Doug Martin > > wrote: >> >> Got it and will take a look tomorrow or on the weekend.____ >> >> __ __ >> >> Thanks,____ >> >> Doug____ >> >> __ __ >> >> __ __ >> >> *From:*gsoc-porta-bounces at lists.r-forge.r-project.org >> >> [mailto:gsoc-porta-bounces at lists.r-forge.r-project.org >> ] *On Behalf >> Of *Ross Bennett >> *Sent:* Thursday, February 20, 2014 11:27 AM >> *To:* PortfolioAnalytics >> *Subject:* Re: [GSoC-PortA] Finishing Touches to >> PortfolioAnalytics____ >> >> __ __ >> >> All,____ >> >> __ __ >> >> >> I am working on adding functionality to accept a list of portfolio >> objects for optimize.portfolio and optimize.portfolio. >> rebalancing.____ >> >> __ __ >> >> >> I added a block of code at the beginning of optimize.portfolio and >> optimize.portfolio.rebalancing to detect a list of portfolio objects >> and then loop through each portfolio in the list of portfolios and >> recursively call optimize.portfolio or >> optimize.portfolio.rebalancing. I have a return statement at the end >> of that block of code. Some frown upon multiple return statements in >> a function, is it ok that I do this here or is there a different >> approach I should follow.____ >> >> __ __ >> >> >> I also added demo/multiple_portfolio_optimization.R so you can test >> out the functionality.____ >> >> __ __ >> >> I just committed my changes with r3318.____ >> >> __ __ >> >> Ross____ >> >> __ __ >> >> __ __ >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Ross Bennett >> > wrote:____ >> >> >> Makes a lot more sense from that perspective to avoid making >> optimize.portfolio and optimize.portfolio.rebalancing S3 generic >> methods. I'll proceed as you have outlined.____ >> >> __ __ >> >> Thanks for the clarification and guidance.____ >> >> __ __ >> >> Ross____ >> >> __ __ >> >> __ __ >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 11:29 PM, Brian G. Peterson >> > wrote:____ >> >> On 02/02/2014 10:25 PM, Ross Bennett wrote:____ >> >> >> Enhance the print and summary methods for >> optimize.portfolio.rebalancing. Currently, a list of____ >> >> >> optimize.portfolio objects at each rebalance period is >> returned.____ >> >> */[Doug] So does that imply one can now input a list of >> portfolio____ >> >> >> >> optimization strategy objects to >> "optimize.portfolio.rebalancing", >> e.g., each with different constraints and different >> objectives?____ >> >> (this would be very useful)/*____ >> >> >> >> >> >> No, that is currently not possible, but should not be too hard to >> implement. I could do this for optimize.portfolio as well. I >> think the >> most robust way to implement this would be to make >> optimize.portfolio() >> and optimize.portfolio.rebalancing() generic methods. >> >> This would require a few minor design changes and I don't think >> it would >> break backwards compatibility. We would have to change the order >> of >> arguments for optimize.portfolio() and >> optimize.portfolio.rebalancing() >> so that 'portfolio' is the first argument, currently 'R' is the >> first >> argument.____ >> >> >> >> I think the desired functionality (take a list of portfolio objects) >> is a good idea. >> >> I don't think relying on S3 dispatch and making optimize.portfolio.* >> into S3 generics makes sense though. >> >> I say this because there's far too much shared code. The >> sub-functions for the different optimizer methods and special cases >> are far less code than the wrapper/framework function. I wouldn't >> want to duplicate all that code, or add a bunch of extra function >> calls in code that's called lots and lots of times. >> >> Also, I *really* hate breaking backwards compatibility by >> rearranging arguments unless there's a compelling reason. For R >> generics like print/plot/summary, using S3 dispatch is the obvious >> and only answer, but for optimize.portfolio.*, I'd say leaving the >> arguments list alone makes the most sense. >> >> I think you could add the loop over portfolio specification list >> elements (if it is a list) and collection of the results into a list >> of optimization results into the optimize.portfolio.* functions >> without too much work, and without breaking existing code. >> >> Regards, >> >> Brian >> >> -- >> Brian G. Peterson >> http://braverock.com/brian/ >> Ph: 773-459-4973 >> IM: bgpbraverock____ >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> GSoC-PortA mailing list >> GSoC-PortA at lists.r-forge.r-project.org >> >> http://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/ >> listinfo/gsoc-porta____ >> >> __ __ >> >> __ __ >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> GSoC-PortA mailing list >> GSoC-PortA at lists.r-forge.r-project.org >> >> >> http://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/ >> listinfo/gsoc-porta >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> GSoC-PortA mailing list >> GSoC-PortA at lists.r-forge.r-project.org >> http://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gsoc-porta >> >> > -- > Brian G. Peterson > http://braverock.com/brian/ > Ph: 773-459-4973 > IM: bgpbraverock > _______________________________________________ > GSoC-PortA mailing list > GSoC-PortA at lists.r-forge.r-project.org > http://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gsoc-porta > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rossbennett34 at gmail.com Fri Apr 11 22:51:14 2014 From: rossbennett34 at gmail.com (Ross Bennett) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 13:51:14 -0700 Subject: [GSoC-PortA] Finishing Touches to PortfolioAnalytics In-Reply-To: References: <000001cf205b$c082bce0$418836a0$@comcast.net> <52F1E846.9040004@braverock.com>

<00e101cf2e6c$5c3952c0$14abf840$@comcast.net> <530B9A74.4020609@braverock.com> Message-ID: A brief update. I've been in communication with Martin Pacala and Stefan Theussl at R-Forge regarding this error and we were not able to find out exactly where the error is coming from or how to fix it. Stefan added PortfolioAnalytics to the Windows and Linux stop list only for the building vignettes part and the build status is now current on R-Forge. Ross On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 9:00 AM, Ross Bennett wrote: > I sent an email to R-Forge at R-Project.org in the beginning of March and > have yet to hear back so I sent a follow up email on Monday. I spent some > time earlier in the week trying to figure out where this error is coming > from and still am unable to replicate the error we are getting on R-Forge. > I heard back from someone yesterday, so hopefully we can get this taken > care of. > > I suppose an option is to leave the .Rnw files in the vignettes/ folder, > move the .pdf files to inst/doc/ and add 'BuildVignettes: false' to the > DESCRIPTION file. > > Ross > > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Brian G. Peterson wrote: > >> I'm guessing the vignettes might just take too long for R-Forge. We >> should ask them to see if they have any other data. I had no trouble >> building it here from the command line and RStudio. >> >> Brian >> >> >> On 02/24/2014 11:23 AM, Ross Bennett wrote: >> >>> All, >>> >>> PortfolioAnalytics is not building on R-forge and part of the error >>> message is shown below. >>> >>> Error: processing vignette 'risk_budget_optimization.Rnw' failed with >>> diagnostics: >>> subscript out of bounds >>> Execution halted >>> Run time: 437.89 seconds. >>> >>> However, when I run R CMD Check, the R code in the vignettes runs >>> successfully so I am not sure how to address this error or if there is >>> something else I am missing. I also tried building the vignette in >>> Rstudio with the 'compile pdf' button and it compiled successfully. For >>> your reference, I am attaching the 00check.log file. >>> >>> Ross >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Doug Martin >> > wrote: >>> >>> Got it and will take a look tomorrow or on the weekend.____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> Thanks,____ >>> >>> Doug____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> *From:*gsoc-porta-bounces at lists.r-forge.r-project.org >>> >>> [mailto:gsoc-porta-bounces at lists.r-forge.r-project.org >>> ] *On Behalf >>> Of *Ross Bennett >>> *Sent:* Thursday, February 20, 2014 11:27 AM >>> *To:* PortfolioAnalytics >>> *Subject:* Re: [GSoC-PortA] Finishing Touches to >>> PortfolioAnalytics____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> All,____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> >>> I am working on adding functionality to accept a list of portfolio >>> objects for optimize.portfolio and optimize.portfolio. >>> rebalancing.____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> >>> I added a block of code at the beginning of optimize.portfolio and >>> optimize.portfolio.rebalancing to detect a list of portfolio objects >>> and then loop through each portfolio in the list of portfolios and >>> recursively call optimize.portfolio or >>> optimize.portfolio.rebalancing. I have a return statement at the end >>> of that block of code. Some frown upon multiple return statements in >>> a function, is it ok that I do this here or is there a different >>> approach I should follow.____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> >>> I also added demo/multiple_portfolio_optimization.R so you can test >>> out the functionality.____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> I just committed my changes with r3318.____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> Ross____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Ross Bennett >>> > >>> wrote:____ >>> >>> >>> Makes a lot more sense from that perspective to avoid making >>> optimize.portfolio and optimize.portfolio.rebalancing S3 generic >>> methods. I'll proceed as you have outlined.____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> Thanks for the clarification and guidance.____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> Ross____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 11:29 PM, Brian G. Peterson >>> > wrote:____ >>> >>> On 02/02/2014 10:25 PM, Ross Bennett wrote:____ >>> >>> >>> Enhance the print and summary methods for >>> optimize.portfolio.rebalancing. Currently, a list of____ >>> >>> >>> optimize.portfolio objects at each rebalance period is >>> returned.____ >>> >>> */[Doug] So does that imply one can now input a list of >>> portfolio____ >>> >>> >>> >>> optimization strategy objects to >>> "optimize.portfolio.rebalancing", >>> e.g., each with different constraints and different >>> objectives?____ >>> >>> (this would be very useful)/*____ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> No, that is currently not possible, but should not be too hard to >>> implement. I could do this for optimize.portfolio as well. I >>> think the >>> most robust way to implement this would be to make >>> optimize.portfolio() >>> and optimize.portfolio.rebalancing() generic methods. >>> >>> This would require a few minor design changes and I don't think >>> it would >>> break backwards compatibility. We would have to change the order >>> of >>> arguments for optimize.portfolio() and >>> optimize.portfolio.rebalancing() >>> so that 'portfolio' is the first argument, currently 'R' is the >>> first >>> argument.____ >>> >>> >>> >>> I think the desired functionality (take a list of portfolio objects) >>> is a good idea. >>> >>> I don't think relying on S3 dispatch and making optimize.portfolio.* >>> into S3 generics makes sense though. >>> >>> I say this because there's far too much shared code. The >>> sub-functions for the different optimizer methods and special cases >>> are far less code than the wrapper/framework function. I wouldn't >>> want to duplicate all that code, or add a bunch of extra function >>> calls in code that's called lots and lots of times. >>> >>> Also, I *really* hate breaking backwards compatibility by >>> rearranging arguments unless there's a compelling reason. For R >>> generics like print/plot/summary, using S3 dispatch is the obvious >>> and only answer, but for optimize.portfolio.*, I'd say leaving the >>> arguments list alone makes the most sense. >>> >>> I think you could add the loop over portfolio specification list >>> elements (if it is a list) and collection of the results into a list >>> of optimization results into the optimize.portfolio.* functions >>> without too much work, and without breaking existing code. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Brian >>> >>> -- >>> Brian G. Peterson >>> http://braverock.com/brian/ >>> Ph: 773-459-4973 >>> IM: bgpbraverock____ >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> GSoC-PortA mailing list >>> GSoC-PortA at lists.r-forge.r-project.org >>> >>> http://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/ >>> listinfo/gsoc-porta____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> GSoC-PortA mailing list >>> GSoC-PortA at lists.r-forge.r-project.org >>> >>> >>> http://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/ >>> listinfo/gsoc-porta >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> GSoC-PortA mailing list >>> GSoC-PortA at lists.r-forge.r-project.org >>> http://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gsoc-porta >>> >>> >> -- >> Brian G. Peterson >> http://braverock.com/brian/ >> Ph: 773-459-4973 >> IM: bgpbraverock >> _______________________________________________ >> GSoC-PortA mailing list >> GSoC-PortA at lists.r-forge.r-project.org >> http://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gsoc-porta >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From josh.m.ulrich at gmail.com Sat Apr 12 00:28:09 2014 From: josh.m.ulrich at gmail.com (Joshua Ulrich) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 17:28:09 -0500 Subject: [GSoC-PortA] Finishing Touches to PortfolioAnalytics In-Reply-To: References: <000001cf205b$c082bce0$418836a0$@comcast.net> <52F1E846.9040004@braverock.com>

<00e101cf2e6c$5c3952c0$14abf840$@comcast.net> <530B9A74.4020609@braverock.com>

Message-ID: Thanks for following up with this Ross! -- Joshua Ulrich | about.me/joshuaulrich FOSS Trading | www.fosstrading.com On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Ross Bennett wrote: > A brief update. > > I've been in communication with Martin Pacala and Stefan Theussl at R-Forge > regarding this error and we were not able to find out exactly where the > error is coming from or how to fix it. Stefan added PortfolioAnalytics to > the Windows and Linux stop list only for the building vignettes part and the > build status is now current on R-Forge. > > Ross > > > On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 9:00 AM, Ross Bennett > wrote: >> >> I sent an email to R-Forge at R-Project.org in the beginning of March and >> have yet to hear back so I sent a follow up email on Monday. I spent some >> time earlier in the week trying to figure out where this error is coming >> from and still am unable to replicate the error we are getting on R-Forge. I >> heard back from someone yesterday, so hopefully we can get this taken care >> of. >> >> I suppose an option is to leave the .Rnw files in the vignettes/ folder, >> move the .pdf files to inst/doc/ and add 'BuildVignettes: false' to the >> DESCRIPTION file. >> >> Ross >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Brian G. Peterson >> wrote: >>> >>> I'm guessing the vignettes might just take too long for R-Forge. We >>> should ask them to see if they have any other data. I had no trouble >>> building it here from the command line and RStudio. >>> >>> Brian >>> >>> >>> On 02/24/2014 11:23 AM, Ross Bennett wrote: >>>> >>>> All, >>>> >>>> PortfolioAnalytics is not building on R-forge and part of the error >>>> message is shown below. >>>> >>>> Error: processing vignette 'risk_budget_optimization.Rnw' failed with >>>> diagnostics: >>>> subscript out of bounds >>>> Execution halted >>>> Run time: 437.89 seconds. >>>> >>>> However, when I run R CMD Check, the R code in the vignettes runs >>>> successfully so I am not sure how to address this error or if there is >>>> something else I am missing. I also tried building the vignette in >>>> Rstudio with the 'compile pdf' button and it compiled successfully. For >>>> your reference, I am attaching the 00check.log file. >>>> >>>> Ross >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Doug Martin >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Got it and will take a look tomorrow or on the weekend.____ >>>> >>>> __ __ >>>> >>>> Thanks,____ >>>> >>>> Doug____ >>>> >>>> __ __ >>>> >>>> __ __ >>>> >>>> *From:*gsoc-porta-bounces at lists.r-forge.r-project.org >>>> >>>> [mailto:gsoc-porta-bounces at lists.r-forge.r-project.org >>>> ] *On Behalf >>>> Of *Ross Bennett >>>> *Sent:* Thursday, February 20, 2014 11:27 AM >>>> *To:* PortfolioAnalytics >>>> *Subject:* Re: [GSoC-PortA] Finishing Touches to >>>> PortfolioAnalytics____ >>>> >>>> __ __ >>>> >>>> All,____ >>>> >>>> __ __ >>>> >>>> >>>> I am working on adding functionality to accept a list of portfolio >>>> objects for optimize.portfolio and >>>> optimize.portfolio.rebalancing.____ >>>> >>>> __ __ >>>> >>>> >>>> I added a block of code at the beginning of optimize.portfolio and >>>> optimize.portfolio.rebalancing to detect a list of portfolio objects >>>> and then loop through each portfolio in the list of portfolios and >>>> recursively call optimize.portfolio or >>>> optimize.portfolio.rebalancing. I have a return statement at the end >>>> of that block of code. Some frown upon multiple return statements in >>>> a function, is it ok that I do this here or is there a different >>>> approach I should follow.____ >>>> >>>> __ __ >>>> >>>> >>>> I also added demo/multiple_portfolio_optimization.R so you can test >>>> out the functionality.____ >>>> >>>> __ __ >>>> >>>> I just committed my changes with r3318.____ >>>> >>>> __ __ >>>> >>>> Ross____ >>>> >>>> __ __ >>>> >>>> __ __ >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Ross Bennett >>>> > >>>> wrote:____ >>>> >>>> >>>> Makes a lot more sense from that perspective to avoid making >>>> optimize.portfolio and optimize.portfolio.rebalancing S3 generic >>>> methods. I'll proceed as you have outlined.____ >>>> >>>> __ __ >>>> >>>> Thanks for the clarification and guidance.____ >>>> >>>> __ __ >>>> >>>> Ross____ >>>> >>>> __ __ >>>> >>>> __ __ >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 11:29 PM, Brian G. Peterson >>>> > wrote:____ >>>> >>>> On 02/02/2014 10:25 PM, Ross Bennett wrote:____ >>>> >>>> >>>> Enhance the print and summary methods for >>>> optimize.portfolio.rebalancing. Currently, a list of____ >>>> >>>> >>>> optimize.portfolio objects at each rebalance period is >>>> returned.____ >>>> >>>> */[Doug] So does that imply one can now input a list of >>>> portfolio____ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> optimization strategy objects to >>>> "optimize.portfolio.rebalancing", >>>> e.g., each with different constraints and different >>>> objectives?____ >>>> >>>> (this would be very useful)/*____ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> No, that is currently not possible, but should not be too hard >>>> to >>>> implement. I could do this for optimize.portfolio as well. I >>>> think the >>>> most robust way to implement this would be to make >>>> optimize.portfolio() >>>> and optimize.portfolio.rebalancing() generic methods. >>>> >>>> This would require a few minor design changes and I don't think >>>> it would >>>> break backwards compatibility. We would have to change the order >>>> of >>>> arguments for optimize.portfolio() and >>>> optimize.portfolio.rebalancing() >>>> so that 'portfolio' is the first argument, currently 'R' is the >>>> first >>>> argument.____ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I think the desired functionality (take a list of portfolio objects) >>>> is a good idea. >>>> >>>> I don't think relying on S3 dispatch and making optimize.portfolio.* >>>> into S3 generics makes sense though. >>>> >>>> I say this because there's far too much shared code. The >>>> sub-functions for the different optimizer methods and special cases >>>> are far less code than the wrapper/framework function. I wouldn't >>>> want to duplicate all that code, or add a bunch of extra function >>>> calls in code that's called lots and lots of times. >>>> >>>> Also, I *really* hate breaking backwards compatibility by >>>> rearranging arguments unless there's a compelling reason. For R >>>> generics like print/plot/summary, using S3 dispatch is the obvious >>>> and only answer, but for optimize.portfolio.*, I'd say leaving the >>>> arguments list alone makes the most sense. >>>> >>>> I think you could add the loop over portfolio specification list >>>> elements (if it is a list) and collection of the results into a list >>>> of optimization results into the optimize.portfolio.* functions >>>> without too much work, and without breaking existing code. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Brian >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Brian G. Peterson >>>> http://braverock.com/brian/ >>>> Ph: 773-459-4973 >>>> IM: bgpbraverock____ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> GSoC-PortA mailing list >>>> GSoC-PortA at lists.r-forge.r-project.org >>>> >>>> >>>> http://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gsoc-porta____ >>>> >>>> __ __ >>>> >>>> __ __ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> GSoC-PortA mailing list >>>> GSoC-PortA at lists.r-forge.r-project.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> http://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gsoc-porta >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> GSoC-PortA mailing list >>>> GSoC-PortA at lists.r-forge.r-project.org >>>> http://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gsoc-porta >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Brian G. Peterson >>> http://braverock.com/brian/ >>> Ph: 773-459-4973 >>> IM: bgpbraverock >>> _______________________________________________ >>> GSoC-PortA mailing list >>> GSoC-PortA at lists.r-forge.r-project.org >>> http://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gsoc-porta >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > GSoC-PortA mailing list > GSoC-PortA at lists.r-forge.r-project.org > http://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gsoc-porta > From rossbennett34 at gmail.com Fri Apr 18 17:00:49 2014 From: rossbennett34 at gmail.com (Ross Bennett) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 08:00:49 -0700 Subject: [GSoC-PortA] Finishing Touches to PortfolioAnalytics In-Reply-To: References: <000001cf205b$c082bce0$418836a0$@comcast.net> <52F1E846.9040004@braverock.com>

<00e101cf2e6c$5c3952c0$14abf840$@comcast.net> <530B9A74.4020609@braverock.com>

Message-ID: I'm glad to report that I found the source of the error with the help of a classmate. He was trying to build the package and was getting the same error we were seeing on R-Forge. The error was coming from Return.rebalancing. He was using PerformanceAnalytics 1.1.0 from CRAN and I was using the development version from R-Forge which is why I wasn't seeing the error. It is good to know this has been fixed in the most recent version of PerformanceAnalytics. I'll make the proper updates to the DESCRIPTION file and vignette. Ross On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Joshua Ulrich wrote: > Thanks for following up with this Ross! > -- > Joshua Ulrich | about.me/joshuaulrich > FOSS Trading | www.fosstrading.com > > > On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Ross Bennett > wrote: > > A brief update. > > > > I've been in communication with Martin Pacala and Stefan Theussl at > R-Forge > > regarding this error and we were not able to find out exactly where the > > error is coming from or how to fix it. Stefan added PortfolioAnalytics to > > the Windows and Linux stop list only for the building vignettes part and > the > > build status is now current on R-Forge. > > > > Ross > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 9:00 AM, Ross Bennett > > wrote: > >> > >> I sent an email to R-Forge at R-Project.org in the beginning of March and > >> have yet to hear back so I sent a follow up email on Monday. I spent > some > >> time earlier in the week trying to figure out where this error is coming > >> from and still am unable to replicate the error we are getting on > R-Forge. I > >> heard back from someone yesterday, so hopefully we can get this taken > care > >> of. > >> > >> I suppose an option is to leave the .Rnw files in the vignettes/ folder, > >> move the .pdf files to inst/doc/ and add 'BuildVignettes: false' to the > >> DESCRIPTION file. > >> > >> Ross > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Brian G. Peterson < > brian at braverock.com> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> I'm guessing the vignettes might just take too long for R-Forge. We > >>> should ask them to see if they have any other data. I had no trouble > >>> building it here from the command line and RStudio. > >>> > >>> Brian > >>> > >>> > >>> On 02/24/2014 11:23 AM, Ross Bennett wrote: > >>>> > >>>> All, > >>>> > >>>> PortfolioAnalytics is not building on R-forge and part of the error > >>>> message is shown below. > >>>> > >>>> Error: processing vignette 'risk_budget_optimization.Rnw' failed with > >>>> diagnostics: > >>>> subscript out of bounds > >>>> Execution halted > >>>> Run time: 437.89 seconds. > >>>> > >>>> However, when I run R CMD Check, the R code in the vignettes runs > >>>> successfully so I am not sure how to address this error or if there is > >>>> something else I am missing. I also tried building the vignette in > >>>> Rstudio with the 'compile pdf' button and it compiled successfully. > For > >>>> your reference, I am attaching the 00check.log file. > >>>> > >>>> Ross > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Doug Martin >>>> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Got it and will take a look tomorrow or on the weekend.____ > >>>> > >>>> __ __ > >>>> > >>>> Thanks,____ > >>>> > >>>> Doug____ > >>>> > >>>> __ __ > >>>> > >>>> __ __ > >>>> > >>>> *From:*gsoc-porta-bounces at lists.r-forge.r-project.org > >>>> > >>>> [mailto:gsoc-porta-bounces at lists.r-forge.r-project.org > >>>> ] *On > Behalf > >>>> Of *Ross Bennett > >>>> *Sent:* Thursday, February 20, 2014 11:27 AM > >>>> *To:* PortfolioAnalytics > >>>> *Subject:* Re: [GSoC-PortA] Finishing Touches to > >>>> PortfolioAnalytics____ > >>>> > >>>> __ __ > >>>> > >>>> All,____ > >>>> > >>>> __ __ > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I am working on adding functionality to accept a list of portfolio > >>>> objects for optimize.portfolio and > >>>> optimize.portfolio.rebalancing.____ > >>>> > >>>> __ __ > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I added a block of code at the beginning of optimize.portfolio and > >>>> optimize.portfolio.rebalancing to detect a list of portfolio > objects > >>>> and then loop through each portfolio in the list of portfolios and > >>>> recursively call optimize.portfolio or > >>>> optimize.portfolio.rebalancing. I have a return statement at the > end > >>>> of that block of code. Some frown upon multiple return statements > in > >>>> a function, is it ok that I do this here or is there a different > >>>> approach I should follow.____ > >>>> > >>>> __ __ > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I also added demo/multiple_portfolio_optimization.R so you can > test > >>>> out the functionality.____ > >>>> > >>>> __ __ > >>>> > >>>> I just committed my changes with r3318.____ > >>>> > >>>> __ __ > >>>> > >>>> Ross____ > >>>> > >>>> __ __ > >>>> > >>>> __ __ > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Ross Bennett > >>>> > > >>>> wrote:____ > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Makes a lot more sense from that perspective to avoid making > >>>> optimize.portfolio and optimize.portfolio.rebalancing S3 generic > >>>> methods. I'll proceed as you have outlined.____ > >>>> > >>>> __ __ > >>>> > >>>> Thanks for the clarification and guidance.____ > >>>> > >>>> __ __ > >>>> > >>>> Ross____ > >>>> > >>>> __ __ > >>>> > >>>> __ __ > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 11:29 PM, Brian G. Peterson > >>>> > wrote:____ > >>>> > >>>> On 02/02/2014 10:25 PM, Ross Bennett wrote:____ > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Enhance the print and summary methods for > >>>> optimize.portfolio.rebalancing. Currently, a list of____ > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> optimize.portfolio objects at each rebalance period is > >>>> returned.____ > >>>> > >>>> */[Doug] So does that imply one can now input a list of > >>>> portfolio____ > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> optimization strategy objects to > >>>> "optimize.portfolio.rebalancing", > >>>> e.g., each with different constraints and different > >>>> objectives?____ > >>>> > >>>> (this would be very useful)/*____ > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> No, that is currently not possible, but should not be too hard > >>>> to > >>>> implement. I could do this for optimize.portfolio as well. I > >>>> think the > >>>> most robust way to implement this would be to make > >>>> optimize.portfolio() > >>>> and optimize.portfolio.rebalancing() generic methods. > >>>> > >>>> This would require a few minor design changes and I don't > think > >>>> it would > >>>> break backwards compatibility. We would have to change the > order > >>>> of > >>>> arguments for optimize.portfolio() and > >>>> optimize.portfolio.rebalancing() > >>>> so that 'portfolio' is the first argument, currently 'R' is > the > >>>> first > >>>> argument.____ > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I think the desired functionality (take a list of portfolio > objects) > >>>> is a good idea. > >>>> > >>>> I don't think relying on S3 dispatch and making > optimize.portfolio.* > >>>> into S3 generics makes sense though. > >>>> > >>>> I say this because there's far too much shared code. The > >>>> sub-functions for the different optimizer methods and special > cases > >>>> are far less code than the wrapper/framework function. I wouldn't > >>>> want to duplicate all that code, or add a bunch of extra function > >>>> calls in code that's called lots and lots of times. > >>>> > >>>> Also, I *really* hate breaking backwards compatibility by > >>>> rearranging arguments unless there's a compelling reason. For R > >>>> generics like print/plot/summary, using S3 dispatch is the obvious > >>>> and only answer, but for optimize.portfolio.*, I'd say leaving the > >>>> arguments list alone makes the most sense. > >>>> > >>>> I think you could add the loop over portfolio specification list > >>>> elements (if it is a list) and collection of the results into a > list > >>>> of optimization results into the optimize.portfolio.* functions > >>>> without too much work, and without breaking existing code. > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> > >>>> Brian > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Brian G. Peterson > >>>> http://braverock.com/brian/ > >>>> Ph: 773-459-4973 > >>>> IM: bgpbraverock____ > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> GSoC-PortA mailing list > >>>> GSoC-PortA at lists.r-forge.r-project.org > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > http://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gsoc-porta____ > >>>> > >>>> __ __ > >>>> > >>>> __ __ > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> GSoC-PortA mailing list > >>>> GSoC-PortA at lists.r-forge.r-project.org > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > http://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gsoc-porta > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> GSoC-PortA mailing list > >>>> GSoC-PortA at lists.r-forge.r-project.org > >>>> > http://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gsoc-porta > >>>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Brian G. Peterson > >>> http://braverock.com/brian/ > >>> Ph: 773-459-4973 > >>> IM: bgpbraverock > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> GSoC-PortA mailing list > >>> GSoC-PortA at lists.r-forge.r-project.org > >>> http://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gsoc-porta > >> > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > GSoC-PortA mailing list > > GSoC-PortA at lists.r-forge.r-project.org > > http://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gsoc-porta > > > _______________________________________________ > GSoC-PortA mailing list > GSoC-PortA at lists.r-forge.r-project.org > http://lists.r-forge.r-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gsoc-porta > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: