GH-47821: [CI][Release][R] Add backslash to repo folder for R binary testing and remove libarrow subfolder

[raulcd]

Rationale for this change

The r-binary-packages job was failing on the release candidate 0 for 22.0.0 due to local repository not being correct.

What changes are included in this PR?

Minor fixes to the R packages repository

Are these changes tested?

Yes, this commit was temporarily applied to the Release Candidate branch to generate the r-binary-packages. The r-binary-packages where generated successfully. See the corresponding issue for a more details description.

Are there any user-facing changes?

No

• GitHub Issue: [CI][Release][R] r-binary-packages job fails on the release candidate branch for 22.0.0 #47821

[github-actions]

⚠️ GitHub issue #47821 has been automatically assigned in GitHub to PR creator.

[raulcd]

@github-actions crossbow submit r-binary-packages

[github-actions]

Revision: f4fa6b7

Submitted crossbow builds: ursacomputing/crossbow @ actions-36836cfdf6

Task	Status
r-binary-packages

[raulcd]

This requires more work as this commit worked on the release candidate but fails on PRs so it seems we are expecting / generating different repositories / artifacts based on whether we are on a development branch or on the release candidate branch.

[raulcd]

@github-actions crossbow submit r-binary-packages

[github-actions]

Revision: 227e8f7

Submitted crossbow builds: ursacomputing/crossbow @ actions-a9fcb6b319

Task	Status
r-binary-packages

[raulcd]

This is now green both on the dev (PRs) and on Release (RC branch). We might require this if we end up doing a new RC due to the Parquet Variant issue.

[kou]

Does this work?

diff --git a/dev/tasks/macros.jinja b/dev/tasks/macros.jinja
index ddcb0d554e..76c67d1de0 100644
--- a/dev/tasks/macros.jinja
+++ b/dev/tasks/macros.jinja
@@ -286,7 +286,7 @@ env:
     run: |
       profile_path <- file.path(getwd(), ".Rprofile")
       repo <- paste0("file://", getwd(), "/repo")
-      str <- paste0("options(arrow.repo = '", repo, "' )")
+      str <- paste0("options(arrow.repo = '", repo, "/' )")
       print(str)
       write(str, file = profile_path, append = TRUE)
       str <- paste0("options(arrow.dev_repo = '", repo, "' )")

arrow.dev_repo is also used

arrow/r/R/install-arrow.R

Line 109 in 7a38744

dev_repo <- getOption("arrow.dev_repo", "https://nightlies.apache.org/arrow/r")

. If we change the default value of arrow.dev_repo, we may need to change more code.

[raulcd]

Does this work?

diff --git a/dev/tasks/macros.jinja b/dev/tasks/macros.jinja
index ddcb0d554e..76c67d1de0 100644
--- a/dev/tasks/macros.jinja
+++ b/dev/tasks/macros.jinja
@@ -286,7 +286,7 @@ env:
     run: |
       profile_path <- file.path(getwd(), ".Rprofile")
       repo <- paste0("file://", getwd(), "/repo")
-      str <- paste0("options(arrow.repo = '", repo, "' )")
+      str <- paste0("options(arrow.repo = '", repo, "/' )")
       print(str)
       write(str, file = profile_path, append = TRUE)
       str <- paste0("options(arrow.dev_repo = '", repo, "' )")

I don't think that would work, this is logically the same change we did initially on the release candidate:

diff --git a/dev/tasks/macros.jinja b/dev/tasks/macros.jinja
index ddcb0d554e..5b1a17d6b7 100644
--- a/dev/tasks/macros.jinja
+++ b/dev/tasks/macros.jinja
@@ -285,7 +285,7 @@ env:
     shell: Rscript {0}
     run: |
       profile_path <- file.path(getwd(), ".Rprofile")
-      repo <- paste0("file://", getwd(), "/repo")
+      repo <- paste0("file://", getwd(), "/repo/")
       str <- paste0("options(arrow.repo = '", repo, "' )")
       print(str)
       write(str, file = profile_path, append = TRUE)

but then it was trying to locate the files here and failing to do so:
file:///__w/crossbow/crossbow/repo/r-libarrow-linux-x86_64-openssl-3.0-22.0.0.zip
that's why I updated the download path for the artifacts.
The problem is that arrow.dev_repo will still try to locate on repo/libarrow/r-libarrow-linux-x86_64-openssl-3.0-22.0.0.zip.

I also am not comfortable of doing a lot of changes on the "release" one because I can't really test it.
I'd rather adapt arrow.dev_repo and if required fix other areas related to the dev_repo as we know with the first commit the rc job is successful.
I am also happy if someone else wants to take this over as this is the first time I am looking at this and seems slightly convoluted.

[kou]

OK. I'll take this over next week.

[kou]

I'll work on this in #47929.