Repository navigation
Documentation check #267
Description
Activity
Look at what Shiny does.
Do you still want these as separate actions? Or as an example workflow that does all of them?
Let's wait for @schloerke since this is something that Shiny already does.
We should also think about compiling translation files
.moas part of this step.Hadley, do you still want an action and/or workflow for these?
TBH it does not seem practical to introduce new jobs for these.
- Maybe the
roxygen2::roxygenise()check could be part of thecheck-r-packageaction? - pkgdown we already "check" in the pkgdown action, which now also runs for PRs
- Spellcheck could be also part of the
check-r-packageaction, optionally. - We could turn on URL checks in
R CMD check, or run the URL checks as part of thecheck-r-packageaction.
- Maybe the
Yeah, I think the best way to handle these would be to introduce additional features/functions in rcmdcheck, and then set those options for actions.
This is blocked by new features in rcmdcheck.
Our team has a pretty simple workflow that we call that has been handling our needs for this
https://github.com/RMI-PACTA/actions/blob/main/.github/workflows/R-check-docs.ymlReacted by Douglas Ezra MorrisonRelated r-lib/usethis#2225
An issue that was preventing our team from chasing down a "docs check" more robustly is that GH Actions doesn't have a good "warning" level for checks (tracked at https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/11592). The workflow our team would generally use is to make whatever code changes we would need to on branch and then rebuild docs at the end, just before opening for review. We've generally been able to use the "required" status checks to make this a non-blocking check.
roxygen2::roxygenise()and check no files changedpkgdown::build_reference_index()is ok