Currently, the use_bioc_github_action function in the biocthis package simplifies the creation of Dockerfiles for Bioconductor repositories. However, this function does not support generating Dockerfiles specifically tailored for Shiny applications.
Describe the solution
I request the addition of a new parameter called "shiny_support" (or a similar name) to the use_bioc_github_action function in the biocthis package. This parameter should be optional, with a default value of FALSE. When set to TRUE, the function should generate a Dockerfile that is specifically adapted for Shiny applications, based on the bioconductor/shiny:dev image. This would greatly simplify the Dockerfile creation process for Shiny applications in Bioconductor repositories.
Describe any alternatives considered
As an alternative, users can manually create a Dockerfile for their Shiny applications based on the bioconductor/shiny:dev image. However, this requires additional knowledge and development time. Adding the "shiny_support" parameter to the use_bioc_github_action function would streamline this process and be more convenient for users aiming to deploy Shiny applications in Bioconductor.
Additional context
NA
Thank you very much for considering the feature request. If you find it a valuable addition, I am willing to prepare a Pull Request (PR) with the proposed changes.
Is the feature request related to a problem?
Currently, the
use_bioc_github_actionfunction in thebiocthispackage simplifies the creation of Dockerfiles for Bioconductor repositories. However, this function does not support generating Dockerfiles specifically tailored for Shiny applications.Describe the solution
I request the addition of a new parameter called "shiny_support" (or a similar name) to the
use_bioc_github_actionfunction in thebiocthispackage. This parameter should be optional, with a default value of FALSE. When set to TRUE, the function should generate a Dockerfile that is specifically adapted for Shiny applications, based on thebioconductor/shiny:devimage. This would greatly simplify the Dockerfile creation process for Shiny applications in Bioconductor repositories.Describe any alternatives considered
As an alternative, users can manually create a Dockerfile for their Shiny applications based on the
bioconductor/shiny:devimage. However, this requires additional knowledge and development time. Adding the "shiny_support" parameter to theuse_bioc_github_actionfunction would streamline this process and be more convenient for users aiming to deploy Shiny applications in Bioconductor.Additional context
NA
Thank you very much for considering the feature request. If you find it a valuable addition, I am willing to prepare a Pull Request (PR) with the proposed changes.