Issue 367: Add system to keep citation files in sync with DESCRIPTION

[jamesmbaazam]

Description

This PR closes #367.

In this PR, I set up the inst/CITATION file to pull relevant fields from the DESCRIPTION file. I also add a workflow to generate a citation.cff whenever relevant fields in CITATION and DESCRIPTION files change. This way, the package always has up-to-date citation information, which can be copied from the citation panel on the package landing page or by running citation(epinowcast).

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.

[seabbs]

This looks great James thanks. Could you put a new news item in referring to this PR and also add yourself as a contributor if you are happy to do so?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (ef6c955) 96.85% compared to head (dc7e0b8) 96.85%.

❗ Current head dc7e0b8 differs from pull request most recent head bf66892. Consider uploading reports for the commit bf66892 to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #369   +/-   ##
=======================================
  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.

[seabbs]

Nice this looks great. The only remaining thing to do is to update the README to include this but I think we should do that once its on main via the CI workflow vs here.

[seabbs]

Are you happy for me to go ahead and merge this @jamesmbaazam?

[jamesmbaazam]

Yes, please go ahead.

[github-actions]

This is how benchmark results would change (along with a 95% confidence interval in relative change) if ef6c955 is merged into main:

•   :ballot_box_with_check:day_of_week_model: 26.6s -> 26.3s [-4.48%, +1.77%]
•   :ballot_box_with_check:latent_renewal_model: 28.7s -> 29.3s [-12.48%, +16.63%]
•   :ballot_box_with_check:missingness_model: 1.32m -> 1.34m [-1.28%, +4.73%]
•   :ballot_box_with_check:multi_group_latent_renewal_model: 7.85s -> 7.86s [-15.19%, +15.44%]
•   :ballot_box_with_check:preprocessing: 691ms -> 694ms [-1.88%, +2.7%]
•   :ballot_box_with_check:simple_model: 5.45s -> 6.66s [-5.17%, +49.34%]
•   :ballot_box_with_check:simple_negbin_model_with_pp: 4.88s -> 5.46s [-26.7%, +50.46%]
  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.