Add PR template for BPG

[stefaneng]

Description

Adds BPG specific PR template

Closes #77

Checklist

• This PR does NOT contain PHI or germline genetic data. A repo may need to be deleted if such data is uploaded. Disclosing PHI is a major problem.
• This PR does NOT contain molecular files, compressed files, output files such as images (e.g. .png, .jpeg), .pdf, .RData, .xlsx, .doc, .ppt, or other non-plain-text files. To automatically exclude such files using a .gitignore file, see here for example.
• I have read the code review guidelines and the code review best practice on GitHub check-list.
• I have set up or verified the main branch protection rule following the github standards before opening this pull request.
• The name of the branch is meaningful and well formatted following the standards, using [AD_username (or 5 letters of AD if AD is too long)]-[brief_description_of_branch].
• I have added the major changes included in this pull request to the CHANGELOG.md under the next release version or unreleased, and updated the date.

[dan-knight]

Does reprex include screenshots of the results? It might be good to phrase the requirements for the test results section more generally, then suggest reprex as a helpful tool. Something like

Include a small working example and a screenshot of the results if applicable. You can use the reprex package to automatically generate example code,"

[stefaneng]

Does reprex include screenshots of the results? It might be good to phrase the requirements for the test results section more generally, then suggest reprex as a helpful tool. Something like

Include a small working example and a screenshot of the results if applicable. You can use the reprex package to automatically generate example code,"

Good idea.

Reprex includes a screenshot as well so I think your instructions sound good

[dan-knight]

One last thing. We should probably also mention DESCRIPTION. I'm thinking something like "I have also updated the version number and date in DESCRIPTION.

[stefaneng]

I'm actually a bit unsure of the workflow here. Do we update the version every PR or do we have multiple bug fixes in 7.0.X?

[dan-knight]

Right, see this discussion for versioning best practices. I think the main thing here is that DESCRIPTION must follow any changes to NEWS. The date will change just about every PR, and the version will likely change regularly enough that it's worth mentioning.

[dan-knight]

Hate to be pedantic, but I wonder if we should combine these for clarity. I see it all as one step, as the date and version number should be consistent between NEWS and DESCRIPTION. I'm hoping that we can teach new contributors through this checklist. If we get this right, we'd avoid a lot of PR review comments.

[stefaneng]

I merged the NEWS and DESCRIPTION lines