Solve #598

NEWS.md

@@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
+# report (devel)
+
+Bug fixes
+
+* Fixed an issue in `report()` where the reference level for logical predictors was incorrectly displayed as `[?]` instead of `FALSE` for the intercept (@M-Colley, #598).
+
 # report 0.6.4
 
 New features

R/report_intercept.R

@@ -98,6 +98,13 @@ print.report_intercept <- function(x, ...) {
         intercept_text,
         paste0(col, " = ", levels(intercept_data[[col]])[ref_level])
       )
+    } else if (is.logical(intercept_data[[col]])) {
+      logical_factor <- as.factor(intercept_data[[col]])
+      ref_level <- .find_reference_level(logical_factor)
+      intercept_text <- c(
+        intercept_text,
+        paste0(col, " = ", levels(logical_factor)[ref_level])
+      )
     } else {
       intercept_text <- c(intercept_text, paste0(col, " = [?]"))
     }

tests/testthat/test-report_intercept.R

@@ -49,4 +49,14 @@ test_that("reflevel", {
     as.character(report_intercept(m3)),
     "The model's intercept, corresponding to f = 1, is at 0.17 (95% CI [-0.47, 0.81], t(27) = 0.55, p = 0.584)."
   )
+
+  # Logical predictor
+  on.exit(data("mtcars"), add = TRUE)
+
+  mtcars$more_than_4_cyl <- as.logical(mtcars$cyl > 4)
+  m4 <- lm(mpg ~ more_than_4_cyl, data = mtcars)
+  expect_identical(
+    as.character(report_intercept(m4)),
+    "The model's intercept, corresponding to more_than_4_cyl = FALSE, is at 26.66 (95% CI [24.41, 28.92], t(30) = 24.16, p < .001)."
+  )
 })