Add CI

[zsusswein]

Adds an initial Github Actions setup. Mainly based on
usethis::use_tidy_github_actions() with some changes:

• The R CMD CHECK runs are pared back to only Ubuntu/OSX/Windows latest
  versions
• The codecov check is dropped because it had some setup with a token
  required. Not totally sure what the deal is there, so I replaced it
  with a simple unit test run for now.
  • EDIT: Got it working. Left the unit tests as a post-push hook.
• I added a check that NEWS.md is modified with each PR into main, so we
  remember to update it with the changes
• I added in a check that fixup commits are blocked, so we remember to
  autosquash before merging
• Set up the pkgdown deployment

I also added in a placeholder R script and test file to run on the
actions. These will be replaced with real functionality in future PRs.

[zsusswein]

I've set all but R CMD check to be required. I figured we might see an occasional weird Windows thing or a NOTE on the build that's not worth immediately addressing. We could require everything or require nothing; I don't feel especially strongly.

[seabbs]

This overall looks good to me.

I think I would definitely make Rmd checks as required (usually these are the only thing that are required and also sometimes the only CI people have). This is because they are testing the integrity of your package. NOTEs etc shouldn't cause a build failure. I can see a world where things like the NEWS update might not be wanted (like a hotfix) and so perhaps that doesn't need to be required.

I also see some issues with DESCRIPTION groups that don't exist. Finally you likely want to add some badges for these to your README.

The codecov check is dropped because it had some setup with a token required. Not totally sure what the deal is there, so I replaced it with a simple unit test run for now.

This is an odd one as it should work as long as someone has authorised cdcgov to use codecov. They must have done so as we are using it in the EpiAware subdirectory. I agree we can move on but lets make an issue with some detail and aim to get it resolved asap.

[seabbs]

Whilst we are here we might also want to enable a merge queue so that we have to worry less about rebasing code al the time (it gets rebased and then all CI run in the merge queue and then merged if it passes and bounced if it doesn't)

[zsusswein]

I think I would definitely make Rmd checks as required

Ha, ok! Switched it around so it's the R CMD checks that are required.

also see some issues with DESCRIPTION groups that don't exist

Fixed.

Finally you likely want to add some badges for these to your README.

I think this is a nice-to-have, but would like to leave out of scope for this PR. Moved to #12.

I agree we can move on but lets make an issue with some detail and aim to get it resolved asap.

Took a little messing around (sorry for all the notifications!) but it's working now.

we might also want to enable a merge queue

I don't mind manually rebasing right now. Let's revisit if this picks up steam?

[codecov]

Welcome to Codecov 🎉

Once you merge this PR into your default branch, you're all set! Codecov will compare coverage reports and display results in all future pull requests.

Thanks for integrating Codecov - We've got you covered ☂️

[seabbs]

All looking pretty good. A few last questions/comments.

As per CFA policy I think you also want pre-commit to be required and also probably your linting check? If you wanted to be very strict with development you could also add code coverage to that

[zsusswein]

As per CFA policy I think you also want pre-commit to be required

✅

probably your linting check

Linting is in pre-commit so that should be covered.

[seabbs]

LGTM. Oh my is this collapsing of commits not via a squash merge CFA policy? I find it very hard to review final PR changes and I don't really get the reason for it vs a squash merge either.

[zsusswein]

No, I was just rebasing. I can stop if you prefer a squash at the end.