Issue 344: Rename enw_delay_filter()

[kathsherratt]

Description

This PR closes #344.

• Renames enw_delay_filter() to enw_filter_delay()
• Deprecated enw_delay_filter() with hard stop error (though this might be too harsh... I later noticed previous epinowcast depreciations used deprecate_warn() )

Checklist

• My PR is based on a package issue and I have explicitly linked it.
• I have included the target issue or issues in the PR title in the for Issue(s) issue-numbers: PR title
• I have read the contribution guidelines.
• I have tested my changes locally.
• I have added or updated unit tests where necessary.
• I have updated the documentation if required.
• My code follows the established coding standards.
• I have added a news item linked to this PR.
• I have updated the package development version by one increment in both NEWS.md and the DESCRIPTION.
• I have reviewed CI checks for this PR and addressed them as far as I am able.

[github-actions]

This is how benchmark results would change (along with a 95% confidence interval in relative change) if d4a65aa is merged into main:

•   :ballot_box_with_check:day_of_week_model: 44.9s -> 46.7s [-2.8%, +10.68%]
•   :ballot_box_with_check:latent_renewal_model: 49.4s -> 50.6s [-9.54%, +14.6%]
•   :ballot_box_with_check:missingness_model: 2.3m -> 2.39m [-0.61%, +8.66%]
•   :ballot_box_with_check:multi_group_latent_renewal_model: 12.9s -> 14.9s [-8.09%, +37.8%]
•   :ballot_box_with_check:preprocessing: 1.24s -> 1.23s [-4.75%, +3.31%]
•   :ballot_box_with_check:simple_model: 11.1s -> 10.2s [-60.56%, +43.9%]
•   :ballot_box_with_check:simple_negbin_model_with_pp: 7.19s -> 8.38s [-12.02%, +44.91%]
  These benchmarks are based on package examples which are available here. Further explanation regarding interpretation and methodology can be found in the documentation of touchstone.

[seabbs]

Thanks @kathsherratt! This is great. I think we probably want to stick with deprecate_warn here unless you think strongly?

Once you've had a chance to think about my comments could you ping me for another review?

Could you also add yourself to the package DESCRIPTION as a contributor?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (d4a65aa) 96.85% compared to head (11ae6f2) 96.85%.

❗ Current head 11ae6f2 differs from pull request most recent head aebec3a. Consider uploading reports for the commit aebec3a to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #365   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   96.85%   96.85%           
=======================================
  Files          15       15           
  Lines        1875     1875           
=======================================
  Hits         1816     1816           
  Misses         59       59           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[github-actions]

This is how benchmark results would change (along with a 95% confidence interval in relative change) if d4a65aa is merged into main:

•   :ballot_box_with_check:day_of_week_model: 26.2s -> 26.9s [-1.21%, +6.87%]
•   :ballot_box_with_check:latent_renewal_model: 30.7s -> 29.9s [-14.5%, +9.11%]
•   :ballot_box_with_check:missingness_model: 1.35m -> 1.32m [-5.63%, +2.07%]
•   :ballot_box_with_check:multi_group_latent_renewal_model: 7.66s -> 7.75s [-9.66%, +12.06%]
•   :ballot_box_with_check:preprocessing: 711ms -> 708ms [-2.08%, +1.3%]
•   :ballot_box_with_check:simple_model: 6.57s -> 8.01s [-42.63%, +86.57%]
•   :ballot_box_with_check:simple_negbin_model_with_pp: 4.83s -> 5.87s [-18.75%, +61.37%]
  These benchmarks are based on package examples which are available here. Further explanation regarding interpretation and methodology can be found in the documentation of touchstone.

[kathsherratt]

@seabbs pinging for a second review

[github-actions]

This is how benchmark results would change (along with a 95% confidence interval in relative change) if d4a65aa is merged into main:

•   :ballot_box_with_check:day_of_week_model: 25.9s -> 26.5s [-1.17%, +5.65%]
•   :ballot_box_with_check:latent_renewal_model: 30.6s -> 28.8s [-21.68%, +9.75%]
•   :ballot_box_with_check:missingness_model: 1.34m -> 1.34m [-3.25%, +3.93%]
•   :ballot_box_with_check:multi_group_latent_renewal_model: 7.75s -> 7.33s [-14.47%, +3.67%]
•   :ballot_box_with_check:preprocessing: 705ms -> 702ms [-1.62%, +0.71%]
•   :ballot_box_with_check:simple_model: 5.84s -> 5.97s [-35.2%, +39.68%]
•   :ballot_box_with_check:simple_negbin_model_with_pp: 6.52s -> 4.89s [-99.49%, +49.35%]
  These benchmarks are based on package examples which are available here. Further explanation regarding interpretation and methodology can be found in the documentation of touchstone.

[seabbs]

LGTM. Thanks a lot Kath!

[jamesmbaazam]

Just noticed a minor mistake in the news item.