-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4
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
add rSharp-based reusable workflows #33
add rSharp-based reusable workflows #33
Conversation
+ Do not install PKSim + Do not install rClr + use linux os
Ready for review @Yuri05 |
- uses: r-lib/actions/check-r-package@v2 | ||
with: | ||
upload-snapshots: true | ||
build_args: 'c("--no-manual","--compact-vignettes=gs+qpdf")' | ||
error-on: 'c("error")' |
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.
I wonder if we should add --no-vignettes
to the check args?
args: c("--no-manual", "--as-cran", "--no-vignettes")
Otherwise all vignettes outputs are created twice: first during the check step, and then during the build step.
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.
It depends if we want to make vignettes available for the users directly from R (with vignette(...)
) or not.
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.
I don't quite understand this.
If the vignettes are built and delivered as part of the package: they can be accessed via vignette(..)
.. or not?
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.
Yes, but if they are not build during this process, they will not be available.
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.
Anyway, I think we should stick with the default behavior (this is the default from r-lib repo)
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.
Ok, I have created a separate issue for this: #34
* use shared workflow submited in Open-Systems-Pharmacology/Workflows#33 * Disable default jekkyl github website
No description provided.