test: add failing test for multiple colliders bug (#878)

[ANAMASGARD]

FIXES: #878

Reproduces the error when check_dag encounters multiple colliders in adjustment nodes, causing: 'length = 2' in coercion to 'logical(1)'

The test currently fails as expected and will pass once the bug is fixed in the .finalize_dag() function.

What This PR Does

• Adds a test case that reproduces the exact error from Error in check_dag? #878
• Uses expect_error() to verify the bug exists
• Test will FAIL in CI (expected behavior)
• Demonstrates the bug before applying the fix

Next Steps

After this PR is reviewed/merged, I will submit a follow-up PR with:

1. The actual bug fix (one-line change)
2. Updated test to verify the fix works

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @ANAMASGARD, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request introduces a new failing test case to precisely reproduce a bug identified in issue #878. The test demonstrates an error occurring in the check_dag function when it processes multiple colliders within adjustment nodes. This PR serves as a preliminary step, establishing a clear reproduction of the bug before a separate follow-up PR will provide the actual fix and update the test to pass.

Highlights

• New Failing Test Case: Introduces a new test_that block in test-check_dag.R to reproduce the bug described in issue Error in check_dag? #878.
• Bug Reproduction: The test specifically targets the error where check_dag encounters multiple colliders in adjustment nodes, leading to an error message "length = 2" in coercion to "logical(1)".
• Expected Failure: The added test is designed to fail currently, confirming the presence of the bug, and is expected to pass once the fix is applied in a subsequent pull request.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request introduces a new test case to reproduce a bug related to handling multiple colliders in check_dag(). The test is well-structured and clearly documents the scenario from issue #878. I have one comment regarding the test's expected outcome, as there seems to be a discrepancy between the behavior of testthat::expect_error() and the description in the pull request. Overall, this is a good addition for ensuring the bug, once fixed, does not regress.