-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Bump dependencies on Delphi packages #12
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Bump versions, update renv.lock. Adjust for breaking changes: - Some obvious renames. - Replace both `pivot_quantiles` and `unnest` `pivot_wider` patterns to `pivot_quantiles_wider`. - Fix some `epi_recipe` and `frosting` printing that doesn't play well with knitr now. Update _freeze files where a first pass visual diff identified "real" differences rather than just a tiny visual offset.
A first pass visual diff did not identify any "real" differences with the current versions, and suggests that some of these changes might just be a tiny offset and/or size adjustment, but this would need a double check before trying to avoid the updates to the _freeze & corresponding repo bloat.
* remove references to R6 and mutation * use epiprocess correctly * fix the authors section of DESCRIPTION * upgrade renv * update all packages in renv * integrate Rprofile with user Rprofile
feat: update for epiprocess R6 refactor
* add a README file * fix broken formatting in packages.bib * get missing data for sliding-forecasters.qmd online instead of local files
@dajmcdon this should be good to go. Mostly just updating the code to the most up to date versions of our packages. This includes my updates to the new |
#| echo: false | ||
#| collapse: true | ||
extract_recipe(out_gb$epi_workflow) | ||
with_messages_cat_to_stdout(print(extract_recipe(out_gb$epi_workflow))) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Generic comment:
with all these patterns, we lose the display of extract_recipe()
(or similar) usage. Maybe we want to think about showing the feature in 1 chunk and printing with a second chunk?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If I understand correctly, you want both code saying
extract_recipe(........)
and the better-formatted output from with_messages_.........
that doesn't turn it into a bunch of chunks?
I think current state of PR should do that. Every replacement was of something that was already echo: false
, except for five_days_ahead$epi_workflow
, which was split into a results: false
chunk + echo: false
chunk.
[That is, unless the pre-existing material was missing some results: false chunks where we actually want them. I think I just assumed they were omitted to avoid clogging the page.]
} | ||
|
||
@Manual{R-epipredict, | ||
title = {epipredict: Basic epidemiology forecasting methods}, | ||
author = {Daniel McDonald and Ryan Tibshirani and Logan Brooks and Rachel Lobay and Maggie Liu and Ken Mawer and Chloe You}, | ||
author = {Daniel McDonald and Ryan Tibshirani and Logan Brooks and Rachel Lobay}, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We may want to rethink author credit in both of our packages. These both strike me as overly exclusive.
Co-authored-by: Daniel McDonald <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Daniel McDonald <[email protected]>
Summary: bump epidatr & epipredict dependency versions, fix breaking changes, update
_freeze
.Breaking changes:
pivot_quantiles
andunnest
pivot_wider
patterns topivot_quantiles_wider
.epi_recipe
andfrosting
printing that doesn't play well withknitr now. (Workaround from here.)
_freeze
updates seemed like they might have both trivial and nontrivial changes. I've tried to divide between commits based on whether I thought were significant vs. those that potentially could be pruned if they seem trivial on a second pass.Some other notes / points to check; if someone else can take a second look that would be great:
lm_wf_log %>% fit(penguins)
output is missing step numbering still (messages probably being filtered out), but it's inside a larger chunk and I didn't want to duplicate it to apply the workaround; it looks fine without the numbering anyway.