Skip to content

857: improve language around the use of dist_spec #940

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jan 30, 2025
Merged

857: improve language around the use of dist_spec #940

merged 3 commits into from
Jan 30, 2025

Conversation

sbfnk
Copy link
Contributor

@sbfnk sbfnk commented Jan 30, 2025

Description

This PR closes #857 by clarifying some language around the use of dist_specs.

Initial submission checklist

  • My PR is based on a package issue and I have explicitly linked it.
  • I have tested my changes locally (using devtools::test() and devtools::check()).
  • I have added or updated unit tests where necessary.
  • I have updated the documentation if required and rebuilt docs if yes (using devtools::document()).
  • I have followed the established coding standards (and checked using lintr::lint_package()).
  • I have added a news item linked to this PR.

After the initial Pull Request

  • I have reviewed Checks for this PR and addressed any issues as far as I am able.

@sbfnk sbfnk requested a review from jamesmbaazam January 30, 2025 10:06
@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Jan 30, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Thank you for your contribution sbfnk 🚀! Your synthetic_recovery markdown is ready for download 👉 here 👈!
(The artifact expires on 2025-02-04T11:17:27Z. You can re-generate it by re-running the workflow here.)

jamesmbaazam
jamesmbaazam previously approved these changes Jan 30, 2025
View reviewed changes
@jamesmbaazam
Copy link
Contributor

Thank you for your contribution sbfnk 🚀! Your synthetic_recovery markdown is ready for download 👉 here 👈! (The artifact expires on 2025-02-04T10:23:20Z. You can re-generate it by re-running the workflow here.)

I don't think we need to run this for every PR. It should probably only be triggered when certain core files are touched in a PR.

@sbfnk @jamesmbaazam
add reviewer / fix typo
a4067ee 
Co-authored-by: James Azam <james.azam@lshtm.ac.uk>
@sbfnk sbfnk mentioned this pull request Jan 30, 2025
Closed
@sbfnk sbfnk requested a review from jamesmbaazam January 30, 2025 11:01
@sbfnk sbfnk enabled auto-merge January 30, 2025 11:08
@sbfnk sbfnk added this pull request to the merge queue Jan 30, 2025
Merged via the queue into main with commit 4b9c821 Jan 30, 2025
9 checks passed
@sbfnk sbfnk deleted the doc-dist-spec branch January 30, 2025 12:53
jamesmbaazam added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 24, 2025
@sbfnk @jamesmbaazam
857: improve language around the use of dist_spec (#940)
5322c50 
* improve language around the use of dist_spec

* add news item

* add reviewer / fix typo

Co-authored-by: James Azam <james.azam@lshtm.ac.uk>

---------

Co-authored-by: James Azam <james.azam@lshtm.ac.uk>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@jamesmbaazam jamesmbaazam jamesmbaazam approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

set tolerance instead of max to delay_opts() for uncertain distributions
2 participants
@sbfnk @jamesmbaazam