use_tidy_upkeep_issue()

[hadley]

Create an issue to bring your package up to spec with latest changes. Would divide into sections with dates (maybe just years?) so you can choose how far to go back (and some should be re-run regularly).

Initial ideas:

• use_tidy_description() + devtools::document()
• use_tidy_github_actions()
• Remove check environments from cran-comments.md
• start with devtools::document() for very old. Maybe check that uses md?
• Update R dependency to match GitHub actions

[jennybc]

More ideas:

• Use testthat 3e -- use_testthat(version = 3)
• Create a pkgdown site -- use_pkgdown_github_pages()
• Get your URLs in order (in DESCRIPTION, on GitHub) (depending on initial state, use_github_links() and use_pkgdown_github_pages() take care of this)
• Consider (re)creating package-level doc to enjoy better usethis management of @importFrom -- use_package_doc()
• Create README.Rmd if you only have README.md -- use_readme_rmd()
• Adopt markdown in roxygen -- use_roxygen_md()

[hadley]

What do you think of this presentation? I always lean towards minimal, but maybe it's worth being more verbose?

Pre-history

• use_readme_rmd()
• use_roxygen_md()
• use_pkgdown_github_pages() / use_github_links()
• use_tidy_labels()
• urlchecker::url_check()
• Restyle?

2020

• use_testthat() and upgrade to 3e
• use_package_doc()
• Align naming of R and test files
• Switch to MIT license

2021

• Remove check environments from cran-comments.md
• use_tidy_dependencies()
• use_tidy_github_actions() and update hand written actions to use setup-r-dependencies
• Bump required R version in DESCRIPTION to 3.3

Evergreen

• devtools::document()
• use_tidy_description()

[jennybc]

I like this proposed organisation.

Should we add something about spelling? I confess I'm pretty foggy on what exactly maintaining WORDLIST buys for us and yet I keep doing it in many packages and I don't get bugged about spelling by CRAN 🤷‍♀️

[jennybc]

Another change I make when I return to something is renaming .R and test files so that use_r() / use_test() is happy to do my bidding.

[hadley]

I think spelling needs to emerge as more a standard; I've added use_r/use_test() alignment above. We might want to add a little helper to facilitate? (But not sure what it would be called since it could only report, not take action)

[hadley]

Maybe call this something like use_spring_clean_issue()? I like the idea of getting spring cleaning into the name somehow since that implies an annual cadence (which feels about right to me).

[DavisVaughan]

use_annual_upkeep_issue() matches our new "upkeep" issue label

[hfrick]

another checkbox could be to update artisanal deprecation messages to use lifecycle

[hadley]

I think we should try and get this into this release. I’m happy to take a first pass when I’m back.