Add rogtemplate features

[dieghernan]

Following https://github.com/orgs/rOpenGov/projects/2 and https://github.com/orgs/rOpenGov/teams/core/discussions/2

Also, site should be deployed from gh-pages branch

Additionally, we are moving logos to an standarized format (see https://ropengov.r-universe.dev/ui#packages). Your new logo would be:

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #41 (c4499b0) into master (ef03200) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

❗ Current head c4499b0 differs from pull request most recent head 54bf6c7. Consider uploading reports for the commit 54bf6c7 to get more accurate results

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master      #41   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   69.42%   69.42%           
=======================================
  Files           8        8           
  Lines         121      121           
=======================================
  Hits           84       84           
  Misses         37       37           

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update ef03200...54bf6c7. Read the comment docs.

[antagomir]

Hi!

Seems good overall - I would leave merging to @muuankarski , though and if @pitkant can also check it would be good.

Re: logos - unified style is nice but I am not sure if we should do this for packages that already have a dedicated custom logo. Another option is to use the template logos only for those packages that do not already have their own custom logo? The current geofi logo seems good to me and it highlights the Finnish landscape which is anyway at the core of the package scope. But we can discuss this, I would leave the final decision to the maintaining author of each package because it is a network of more or less independent contributors, we can encourage good practices, though, and we are not having a similar package review (yet) than rOpenSci, for instance. Perhaps something to consider too.

[pitkant]

Perhaps a bit off-topic in regards to the main content of this PR but:

Yes I agree with @antagomir that if packages already have a custom logo it's good if they continue to do so, but if they don't it's good that there's a simple hexagon logo as a placeholder. I wouldn't be too worried about package logos having different visual designs or colour palettes, in my opinion a diverse selection of logos creates a visually more interesting landscape than a set of logos that strictly follow the same design language.

Maybe this is a discussion best had in a more general setting.

[dieghernan]

I am also fine with that. I would put this on hold by now and would remove the logo change of the PR

[muuankarski]

Looks good, will merge!

[dieghernan]

Site is now deployed from gh- pages branch 👍🏻