Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 66.29%. Comparing base (06827dc) to head (31976b5).
Report is 22 commits behind head on main.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main      #45   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   66.29%   66.29%           
=======================================
  Files          53       53           
  Lines       10395    10395           
=======================================
  Hits         6891     6891           
  Misses       3504     3504           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

hm, I'm just wondering why we do not run into File fit_model-1.png not found in resource path (and alike) errors in the CRAN-like checks. We do not skip building the vignettes (no --no-build-vignettes or --ignore-vignettes).

I'm not sure I understand your question. Our CRAN-like-checks did fail previously to build the vignettes.

I was a bit confused when I saw the errors on CRAN for the first time because we did not had them at the time when we submitted them to CRAN. It turned out that we were working on two different development branches, one for the website and one to resolve the manual feedback we've received from the CRAN team during submission - and I didn't merge them ^^ The problem with rebuilding the vignettes appeared only when I merged the website branch into main (which triggered the respective event as supposed to).
For the long term, I think we should really discuss again the development workflow. This is definitely not very elegant... In particular, we should think about how to handle the manual CRAN feedback on their "pre-checks" before they send it to CRAN.

hm, I'm just wondering why we do not run into File fit_model-1.png not found in resource path (and alike) errors in the CRAN-like checks. We do not skip building the vignettes (no --no-build-vignettes or --ignore-vignettes).

I'm not sure I understand your question. Our CRAN-like-checks did fail previously to build the vignettes.

I was a bit confused when I saw the errors on CRAN for the first time because we did not had them at the time when we submitted them to CRAN. It turned out that we were working on two different development branches, one for the website and one to resolve the manual feedback we've received from the CRAN team during submission - and I didn't merge them ^^ The problem with rebuilding the vignettes appeared only when I merged the website branch into main (which triggered the respective event as supposed to). For the long term, I think we should really discuss again the development workflow. This is definitely not very elegant... In particular, we should think about how to handle the manual CRAN feedback on their "pre-checks" before they send it to CRAN.

Ah, I see.I was referring to the tests that succeeded on main.

I agree, let's have a chat about the workflow. For now we have only focused about development but, especially since the CRAN submission is probably never a one-shot thing, we should also go over our branching strategy for "production", i.e. publishing to CRAN in our case.