revisit scda decoupling

[m7pr]

What is your question?

I think we should apply the same changes to osprey as we did in the follow-up to decoupling at teal.transform https://github.com/insightsengineering/teal.transform/pull/142

Main wishes are

• prepend dataset names with package names as now we are having the same data in multiple packages (teal.transform::rADAE and teal.modules.general::rADAE for example)
• add a data-raw/data.R file to show how the data/ folder was created
• extend .RBuildignore file to omit data-raw/data.R while building the package

cc @kartikeyakirar @gogonzo

Code of Conduct

• [X] I agree to follow this project's Code of Conduct.

Contribution Guidelines

• [X] I agree to follow this project's Contribution Guidelines.

Security Policy

• [X] I agree to follow this project's Security Policy.

[gogonzo]

prepend dataset names with package names as now we are having the same data in multiple packages (teal.transform::rADAE and teal.modules.general::rADAE for example)

I disagree. osprey is on the top of dependency tree, it doesn't depend on any of teal.* packages.

• add a data-raw/data.R file to show how the data/ folder was created
• extend .RBuildignore file to omit data-raw/data.R while building the package

Good point

[m7pr]

what about the situation where you load osprey and then you load some teal.* packages. then the calls to datasets gets clunky as there is a clash in object names being used in multiple packages. the datasets will be used from the last loaded package and can be different