search

ropensci / software-review

rOpenSci Software Peer Review.
295 stars 104 forks source link

World Magnetic Model (WMM) #522

Closed wfrierson closed 1 year ago

wfrierson commented 2 years ago

Date accepted: 2023-10-30

Submitting Author Name: Will Frierson Submitting Author Github Handle: !--author1-->@wfrierson<!--end-author1-- Repository: https://github.com/wfrierson/wmm Version submitted: 1.1.1 Submission type: Standard Editor: !--editor-->@maelle<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @drmowinckels, @HaoZeke

Due date for @drmowinckels: 2022-11-03

Archive: TBD Version accepted: TBD Language: en

Package: wmm
Type: Package
Title: World Magnetic Model
Version: 1.1.1
Authors@R: person("Will", "Frierson", email = "will.frierson@gmail.com",
  role = c("aut", "cre"))
Maintainer: Will Frierson <will.frierson@gmail.com>
Description: Calculate magnetic field at a given location and time according to 
  the World Magnetic Model (WMM). Both the main field and secular variation 
  components are returned. This functionality is useful for physicists and 
  geophysicists who need orthogonal components from WMM. Currently, this package 
  supports annualized time inputs between 2000 and 2025. If desired, users can
  specify which WMM version to use, e.g., the original WMM2015 release or the 
  recent out-of-cycle WMM2015 release. Methods used to implement WMM, including 
  the Gauss coefficients for each release, are described in the following 
  publications: Chulliat et al (2020) <doi:10.25923/ytk1-yx35>,
  Chulliat et al (2019) <doi:10.25921/xhr3-0t19>, 
  Chulliat et al (2015) <doi:10.7289/V5TB14V7>, 
  Maus et al (2010) <https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/WMM/data/WMMReports/WMM2010_Report.pdf>, 
  McLean et al (2004) <https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/WMM/data/WMMReports/TRWMM_2005.pdf>,
  and Macmillian et al (2000) <https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/WMM/data/WMMReports/wmm2000.pdf>.
License: MIT + file LICENSE
Encoding: UTF-8
Depends: 
  R (>= 2.10)
RoxygenNote: 6.1.1
Suggests:
  testthat (>= 2.0.1),
  data.table (>= 1.12.2)
URL: https://github.com/wfrierson/wmm
BugReports: https://github.com/wfrierson/wmm/issues
Language: en-US

Scope

Technical checks

Confirm each of the following by checking the box.

This package:

Publication options

MEE Options - [ ] The package is novel and will be of interest to the broad readership of the journal. - [ ] The manuscript describing the package is no longer than 3000 words. - [ ] You intend to archive the code for the package in a long-term repository which meets the requirements of the journal (see [MEE's Policy on Publishing Code](http://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/hub/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)2041-210X/journal-resources/policy-on-publishing-code.html)) - (*Scope: Do consider MEE's [Aims and Scope](http://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/hub/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)2041-210X/aims-and-scope/read-full-aims-and-scope.html) for your manuscript. We make no guarantee that your manuscript will be within MEE scope.*) - (*Although not required, we strongly recommend having a full manuscript prepared when you submit here.*) - (*Please do not submit your package separately to Methods in Ecology and Evolution*)

Code of conduct

ropensci-review-bot commented 2 years ago

Thanks for submitting to rOpenSci, our editors and @ropensci-review-bot will reply soon. Type @ropensci-review-bot help for help.

ropensci-review-bot commented 2 years ago

Checks for wmm (v1.1.1)

git hash: 0fe1132f

Important: All failing checks above must be addressed prior to proceeding

Package License: MIT + file LICENSE

1. Statistical Properties

This package features some noteworthy statistical properties which may need to be clarified by a handling editor prior to progressing.

Details of statistical properties (click to open)

The package has: - code in R (100% in 6 files) and - 1 authors - no vignette - no internal data file - 1 imported package - 14 exported functions (median 15 lines of code) - 15 non-exported functions in R (median 22 lines of code) --- Statistical properties of package structure as distributional percentiles in relation to all current CRAN packages The following terminology is used: - `loc` = "Lines of Code" - `fn` = "function" - `exp`/`not_exp` = exported / not exported All parameters are explained as tooltips in the locally-rendered HTML version of this report generated by [the `checks_to_markdown()` function](https://docs.ropensci.org/pkgcheck/reference/checks_to_markdown.html) The final measure (`fn_call_network_size`) is the total number of calls between functions (in R), or more abstract relationships between code objects in other languages. Values are flagged as "noteworthy" when they lie in the upper or lower 5th percentile. |measure | value| percentile|noteworthy | |:-----------------------|-----:|----------:|:----------| |files_R | 6| 40.3| | |files_vignettes | 0| 0.0|TRUE | |files_tests | 4| 79.0| | |loc_R | 345| 36.3| | |loc_tests | 186| 53.2| | |num_vignettes | 0| 0.0|TRUE | |n_fns_r | 29| 39.2| | |n_fns_r_exported | 14| 56.3| | |n_fns_r_not_exported | 15| 32.7| | |n_fns_per_file_r | 2| 43.8| | |num_params_per_fn | 2| 11.9| | |loc_per_fn_r | 17| 52.0| | |loc_per_fn_r_exp | 15| 35.6| | |loc_per_fn_r_not_exp | 22| 66.9| | |rel_whitespace_R | 21| 43.1| | |rel_whitespace_tests | 9| 31.9| | |doclines_per_fn_exp | 15| 6.0| | |doclines_per_fn_not_exp | 0| 0.0|TRUE | |fn_call_network_size | 11| 34.5| | ---

1a. Network visualisation

Click to see the interactive network visualisation of calls between objects in package

2. goodpractice and other checks

Details of goodpractice and other checks (click to open)

--- #### 3b. `goodpractice` results #### `R CMD check` with [rcmdcheck](https://r-lib.github.io/rcmdcheck/) rcmdcheck found no errors, warnings, or notes #### Test coverage with [covr](https://covr.r-lib.org/) Package coverage: 90.68 #### Cyclocomplexity with [cyclocomp](https://github.com/MangoTheCat/cyclocomp) No functions have cyclocomplexity >= 15 #### Static code analyses with [lintr](https://github.com/jimhester/lintr) [lintr](https://github.com/jimhester/lintr) found the following 39 potential issues: message | number of times --- | --- Lines should not be more than 80 characters. | 38 Use <-, not =, for assignment. | 1

Package Versions

|package |version | |:--------|:---------| |pkgstats |0.0.3.94 | |pkgcheck |0.0.2.275 |

Editor-in-Chief Instructions:

Processing may not proceed until the items marked with :heavy_multiplication_x: have been resolved.

jooolia commented 2 years ago

Dear @wfrierson, thank you for your submission following your pre-submission.

Could you address the issues regarding the codemeta.json file, the contributing file, the vignette(s), and the examples. I see that you have continuous integration checks on Travis-CI so this X can be ignored. Please see the packaging guide and feel free to ask any questions if you need help. Thanks, Julia

jooolia commented 2 years ago

Dear @wfrierson, Do you have any updates here? If I do not hear back from you in a week I will close this issue (but feel free to reopen). Thanks, Julia

wfrierson commented 2 years ago

Thanks, Julia. Sorry for the delay! I'm working on these now.

Re: the examples, all the listed functions with a '.' prefix are not exported (and therefore not intended for end users). I added roxygen frameworks for these functions for curious users. The last 'wmm' reference is for the package-level wmm.R file, i.e., it's not a function.

Do I still need examples for these?

jooolia commented 2 years ago

Hi @wfrierson, Thanks for the update. Regarding the functions without examples, if you add the Roxygen "@keywords internal" to these functions then this check should be ok for your "." fucntions.

Thanks, Julia

mpadge commented 2 years ago

One minor update on @jooolia's comment: the rOpenSci DevGuide recommends using @noRd instead of @Keywords internal.

jooolia commented 2 years ago

Hello @wfrierson, Do you have any updates on your submission? Do you need any support from our side? Thanks, Julia

wfrierson commented 2 years ago

Apologies for the delay. I'm updating my package on CRAN to be consistent with the ropensci changes and am waiting for their approval. I'll check on its status since it's been awhile.

On Fri, Jun 3, 2022, 7:28 AM Julia Gustavsen @.***> wrote:

Hello @wfrierson https://github.com/wfrierson, Do you have any updates on your submission? Do you need any support from our side? Thanks, Julia

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ropensci/software-review/issues/522#issuecomment-1146021195, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKYZJLM44WIISXSSJT5XK5DVNII6ZANCNFSM5RZPSZPQ . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

jooolia commented 2 years ago

thanks @wfrierson! let us know when you get some updates.

wfrierson commented 2 years ago

@jooolia, is it possible for my latest changes to be reviewed before I submit to CRAN? If I submit to CRAN and then realize I missed something for ropensci, the CRAN volunteers will be less than excited to review a 2nd submission within the same month.

My changes to be compliant with ropensci are in the ropensci_updates branch (link).

jooolia commented 2 years ago

Hi @wfrierson, I had a quick look and most of the issues appear to be fixed (I don't know why our CI checks are not being picked up, I will ask the other editors). Let me know when your changes will be merged into main and then I will find a handling editor who can then start looking for reviewers. Cheers, Julia

wfrierson commented 2 years ago

Ok, will do. Thanks!

On Tue, Jun 14, 2022, 11:38 AM Julia Gustavsen @.***> wrote:

Hi @wfrierson https://github.com/wfrierson, I had a quick look and most of the issues appear to be fixed (I don't know why our CI checks are not being picked up, I will ask the other editors). Let me know when your changes will be merged into main and then I will find a handling editor who can then start looking for reviewers. Cheers, Julia

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ropensci/software-review/issues/522#issuecomment-1155588103, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKYZJLIQKPESC4SRZGOFDA3VPDGQ5ANCNFSM5RZPSZPQ . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

wfrierson commented 2 years ago

@jooolia, I've merged the feature branch into main. Let me know if there are any questions.

Thanks again!

jooolia commented 2 years ago

@ropensci-review-bot check package

ropensci-review-bot commented 2 years ago

Thanks, about to send the query.

ropensci-review-bot commented 2 years ago

:rocket:

Editor check started

:wave:

ropensci-review-bot commented 2 years ago

Oops, something went wrong with our automatic package checks. Our developers have been notified and package checks will appear here as soon as we've resolved the issue. Sorry for any inconvenience.

jgustavsen commented 2 years ago

Hi, I am going to ask about what is going on with the bot.

jooolia commented 2 years ago

@ropensci-review-bot check package

ropensci-review-bot commented 2 years ago

Thanks, about to send the query.

ropensci-review-bot commented 2 years ago

:rocket:

Editor check started

:wave:

ropensci-review-bot commented 2 years ago

Oops, something went wrong with our automatic package checks. Our developers have been notified and package checks will appear here as soon as we've resolved the issue. Sorry for any inconvenience.

jooolia commented 2 years ago

Hello, @mpadge will be looking into this later. Cheers, Julia

ropensci-review-bot commented 2 years ago

Checks for wmm (v1.1.2)

git hash: d9d4a37a

Important: All failing checks above must be addressed prior to proceeding

Package License: MIT + file LICENSE

1. Package Dependencies

Details of Package Dependency Usage (click to open)

The table below tallies all function calls to all packages ('ncalls'), both internal (r-base + recommended, along with the package itself), and external (imported and suggested packages). 'NA' values indicate packages to which no identified calls to R functions could be found. Note that these results are generated by an automated code-tagging system which may not be entirely accurate. |type |package | ncalls| |:----------|:----------|------:| |internal |base | 43| |internal |stats | 1| |imports |NA | NA| |suggests |testthat | NA| |suggests |data.table | NA| |suggests |knitr | NA| |suggests |rmarkdown | NA| |linking_to |NA | NA| Click below for tallies of functions used in each package. Locations of each call within this package may be generated locally by running 's <- pkgstats::pkgstats()', and examining the 'external_calls' table.

base

list (12), sqrt (4), t (4), sin (3), atan2 (2), cos (2), do.call (2), length (2), outer (2), asin (1), if (1), mode (1), rbind (1), rowSums (1), seq (1), seq_along (1), union (1), vector (1), with (1)

stats

time (1)

**NOTE:** No imported packages appear to have associated function calls; please ensure with author that these 'Imports' are listed appropriately.

2. Statistical Properties

This package features some noteworthy statistical properties which may need to be clarified by a handling editor prior to progressing.

Details of statistical properties (click to open)

The package has: - code in R (100% in 6 files) and - 1 authors - 1 vignette - no internal data file - 1 imported package - 14 exported functions (median 15 lines of code) - 15 non-exported functions in R (median 22 lines of code) --- Statistical properties of package structure as distributional percentiles in relation to all current CRAN packages The following terminology is used: - `loc` = "Lines of Code" - `fn` = "function" - `exp`/`not_exp` = exported / not exported All parameters are explained as tooltips in the locally-rendered HTML version of this report generated by [the `checks_to_markdown()` function](https://docs.ropensci.org/pkgcheck/reference/checks_to_markdown.html) The final measure (`fn_call_network_size`) is the total number of calls between functions (in R), or more abstract relationships between code objects in other languages. Values are flagged as "noteworthy" when they lie in the upper or lower 5th percentile. |measure | value| percentile|noteworthy | |:------------------------|-----:|----------:|:----------| |files_R | 6| 40.3| | |files_vignettes | 2| 85.7| | |files_tests | 4| 79.0| | |loc_R | 345| 36.3| | |loc_vignettes | 62| 12.8| | |loc_tests | 186| 53.2| | |num_vignettes | 1| 64.8| | |n_fns_r | 29| 39.2| | |n_fns_r_exported | 14| 56.3| | |n_fns_r_not_exported | 15| 32.7| | |n_fns_per_file_r | 2| 43.8| | |num_params_per_fn | 2| 11.9| | |loc_per_fn_r | 17| 52.0| | |loc_per_fn_r_exp | 15| 35.6| | |loc_per_fn_r_not_exp | 22| 66.9| | |rel_whitespace_R | 21| 43.1| | |rel_whitespace_vignettes | 85| 40.8| | |rel_whitespace_tests | 9| 31.9| | |doclines_per_fn_exp | 15| 6.0| | |doclines_per_fn_not_exp | 0| 0.0|TRUE | |fn_call_network_size | 11| 34.5| | ---

2a. Network visualisation

Click to see the interactive network visualisation of calls between objects in package

3. goodpractice and other checks

Details of goodpractice checks (click to open)

--- #### 3b. `goodpractice` results #### `R CMD check` with [rcmdcheck](https://r-lib.github.io/rcmdcheck/) rcmdcheck found no errors, warnings, or notes #### Test coverage with [covr](https://covr.r-lib.org/) Package coverage: 90.68 #### Cyclocomplexity with [cyclocomp](https://github.com/MangoTheCat/cyclocomp) No functions have cyclocomplexity >= 15 #### Static code analyses with [lintr](https://github.com/jimhester/lintr) [lintr](https://github.com/jimhester/lintr) found the following 39 potential issues: message | number of times --- | --- Lines should not be more than 80 characters. | 38 Use <-, not =, for assignment. | 1

4. Other Checks

Details of other checks (click to open)

Package Versions

|package |version | |:--------|:--------| |pkgstats |0.0.4.89 | |pkgcheck |0.0.3.62 |

Editor-in-Chief Instructions:

Processing may not proceed until the items marked with :heavy_multiplication_x: have been resolved.

mpadge commented 2 years ago

@jooolia Our automated system only checks for continuous integration on GitHub. This package uses travis for CI, so that failing check may be ignored. (We officially advise using alternatives to travis, but that advice itself may need updating?)

Edit: rOpenSci's updated statement on travis is here.

wfrierson commented 2 years ago

@jooolia, I just realized that I didn't update the NAMESPACE to reflect the @noRd changes. This is resolved in the latest commit. My apologies for that!

I see that ropensci-review-bot has noted the renv library. wmm is pure R, but I use renv for the packages used for unit tests. When installed from CRAN, no other packages are installed (noted in the DESCRIPTION file). Do I really need to remove renv?

mpadge commented 2 years ago

@wfrierson No, you don't need to remove renv, just deactivate it. That only changes the local .Rprofile file by commenting out the source line. Alternatively, just remove that file from the repo and keep a local version only.

wfrierson commented 2 years ago

Thanks, @mpadge!

@jooolia, I've deactivated renv, which should be the last requested change. Are there any other changes needed?

jooolia commented 2 years ago

Hi @wfrierson, To me it is looking good. I will look for a handling editor who can then look for reviewers. Thanks!

@mpadge do you know why the internal functions are coming up as not having examples? This is why I suggested using "@keyword internal" because then for me the check was ok with pkgcheck(https://github.com/ropensci/software-review/issues/522#issuecomment-1114566751). Do you see the issue why it is not working with “@noRd“?

mpadge commented 2 years ago

@jooolia I've no idea, but nor is it repeatable: The bot checks on current system work fine and do not generate those failing "no examples" checks. Sorry for temporary inconvenience there.

jooolia commented 2 years ago

@ropensci-review-bot assign @maelle as editor

ropensci-review-bot commented 2 years ago

Assigned! @maelle is now the editor

maelle commented 2 years ago

@ropensci-review-bot check package

ropensci-review-bot commented 2 years ago

Thanks, about to send the query.

ropensci-review-bot commented 2 years ago

:rocket:

Editor check started

:wave:

ropensci-review-bot commented 2 years ago

Checks for wmm (v1.1.2)

git hash: 6f5ecb53

Important: All failing checks above must be addressed prior to proceeding

Package License: MIT + file LICENSE

1. Package Dependencies

Details of Package Dependency Usage (click to open)

The table below tallies all function calls to all packages ('ncalls'), both internal (r-base + recommended, along with the package itself), and external (imported and suggested packages). 'NA' values indicate packages to which no identified calls to R functions could be found. Note that these results are generated by an automated code-tagging system which may not be entirely accurate. |type |package | ncalls| |:----------|:----------|------:| |internal |base | 43| |internal |stats | 1| |imports |NA | NA| |suggests |testthat | NA| |suggests |data.table | NA| |suggests |knitr | NA| |suggests |rmarkdown | NA| |linking_to |NA | NA| Click below for tallies of functions used in each package. Locations of each call within this package may be generated locally by running 's <- pkgstats::pkgstats()', and examining the 'external_calls' table.

base

list (12), sqrt (4), t (4), sin (3), atan2 (2), cos (2), do.call (2), length (2), outer (2), asin (1), if (1), mode (1), rbind (1), rowSums (1), seq (1), seq_along (1), union (1), vector (1), with (1)

stats

time (1)

**NOTE:** No imported packages appear to have associated function calls; please ensure with author that these 'Imports' are listed appropriately.

2. Statistical Properties

This package features some noteworthy statistical properties which may need to be clarified by a handling editor prior to progressing.

Details of statistical properties (click to open)

The package has: - code in R (100% in 6 files) and - 1 authors - 1 vignette - no internal data file - 1 imported package - 1 exported function (median 23 lines of code) - 28 non-exported functions in R (median 16 lines of code) --- Statistical properties of package structure as distributional percentiles in relation to all current CRAN packages The following terminology is used: - `loc` = "Lines of Code" - `fn` = "function" - `exp`/`not_exp` = exported / not exported All parameters are explained as tooltips in the locally-rendered HTML version of this report generated by [the `checks_to_markdown()` function](https://docs.ropensci.org/pkgcheck/reference/checks_to_markdown.html) The final measure (`fn_call_network_size`) is the total number of calls between functions (in R), or more abstract relationships between code objects in other languages. Values are flagged as "noteworthy" when they lie in the upper or lower 5th percentile. |measure | value| percentile|noteworthy | |:------------------------|-----:|----------:|:----------| |files_R | 6| 40.3| | |files_vignettes | 2| 85.7| | |files_tests | 4| 79.0| | |loc_R | 345| 36.3| | |loc_vignettes | 62| 12.8| | |loc_tests | 186| 53.2| | |num_vignettes | 1| 64.8| | |n_fns_r | 29| 39.2| | |n_fns_r_exported | 1| 0.0|TRUE | |n_fns_r_not_exported | 28| 50.8| | |n_fns_per_file_r | 2| 43.8| | |num_params_per_fn | 5| 69.6| | |loc_per_fn_r | 17| 52.0| | |loc_per_fn_r_exp | 23| 52.6| | |loc_per_fn_r_not_exp | 16| 52.7| | |rel_whitespace_R | 21| 43.1| | |rel_whitespace_vignettes | 85| 40.8| | |rel_whitespace_tests | 9| 31.9| | |doclines_per_fn_exp | 95| 89.6| | |doclines_per_fn_not_exp | 0| 0.0|TRUE | |fn_call_network_size | 11| 34.5| | ---

2a. Network visualisation

Click to see the interactive network visualisation of calls between objects in package

3. goodpractice and other checks

Details of goodpractice checks (click to open)

--- #### 3b. `goodpractice` results #### `R CMD check` with [rcmdcheck](https://r-lib.github.io/rcmdcheck/) rcmdcheck found no errors, warnings, or notes #### Test coverage with [covr](https://covr.r-lib.org/) Package coverage: 90.68 #### Cyclocomplexity with [cyclocomp](https://github.com/MangoTheCat/cyclocomp) No functions have cyclocomplexity >= 15 #### Static code analyses with [lintr](https://github.com/jimhester/lintr) [lintr](https://github.com/jimhester/lintr) found the following 39 potential issues: message | number of times --- | --- Lines should not be more than 80 characters. | 38 Use <-, not =, for assignment. | 1

Package Versions

|package |version | |:--------|:--------| |pkgstats |0.1.1.1 | |pkgcheck |0.0.3.74 |

Editor-in-Chief Instructions:

Processing may not proceed until the items marked with :heavy_multiplication_x: have been resolved.

maelle commented 2 years ago

:wave: @wfrierson!

Happy to help with technical problems!

wfrierson commented 2 years ago

Thanks for the feedback, @maelle. I'm working on these changes and will get back to you.

maelle commented 2 years ago

:wave: @wfrierson, any update? :smile_cat:

wfrierson commented 2 years ago

Hello! I'm troubleshooting GitHub Actions for CI. I expect to make more progress on this over the next few days. Sorry for the delay.

On Tue, Jul 19, 2022, 1:26 AM Maëlle Salmon @.***> wrote:

👋 @wfrierson https://github.com/wfrierson, any update? 😸

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ropensci/software-review/issues/522#issuecomment-1188753693, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKYZJLPOULOWEWMON6OQXF3VUZRCXANCNFSM5RZPSZPQ . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

maelle commented 2 years ago

Ok, feel free to ask any question if needed!

wfrierson commented 2 years ago

@maelle, I'm stumped on getting GH actions working. I've read tutorials and tried the usethis shortcuts. However, I continue to run into issue after issue. The script check_and_testthat.yml fails due to something about making the vignette into a pdf. The script test-coverage.yaml says it passes, but says "Request failed... Could not find a repository, try using repo upload token". I have researched these topics but with no progress.

I just need GH actions to do a few simple things:

If you have any recommendations, I'd appreciate any help (link). Thanks!

maelle commented 2 years ago

:wave: @wfrierson!

How did you create the check_and_testthat.yml file? I'd suggest deleting it, then updating usethis to its latest version, and then running usethis::use_github_action_check_standard() (that will create the R CMD check workflow). Then commit and push.

Regarding the test coverage error, do you have a codecov account linked to your GitHub account?

maelle commented 2 years ago

@ropensci-review-bot assign @adamhsparks as editor

ropensci-review-bot commented 2 years ago

Assigned! @adamhsparks is now the editor

maelle commented 2 years ago

@wfrierson change of editor for the next three weeks (thanks a ton @adamhsparks!) :smile_cat:

wfrierson commented 2 years ago

Thanks for your help, @maelle! Sorry for being slow here. Thanks for your recommendation re: GH actions. I got the R CMD check workflow to work via usethis. I'm not troubleshooting running testthat unit tests.

@adamhsparks, do you happen to know of any example GH action workflows that demonstrate how to run a testthat sequence of unit tests?

adamhsparks commented 2 years ago

Hi @wfrierson, is this what you're after?

https://github.com/adamhsparks/wmm/runs/7644467088?check_suite_focus=true

I set this up using usethis as below.

# set up regular package checks and tests
usethis::use_github_action_check_standard()

# set up code coverage
usethis::use_coverage("codecov")

# automate the code coverage
usethis::use_github_action("test-coverage")
maelle commented 2 years ago

@ropensci-review-bot assign @maelle as editor