-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 32
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
interest in an rmarkdown::render pull request? #152
Comments
Yes, that would be great, thanks. I am currently fairly ignorant of where the state-of-the-art is in this area, and would appreciate the help |
Can we work towards a more general rule system that allows custom rules? I'm thinking about something along the following lines: rules:
rmd_document:
call: knit_with_deps(target_name, dep_names)
targets:
reports/final.html:
type: rmd_document
depends:
- reports/final.Rmd
- dep1
- dep2 Please see also #107 for thoughts on standalone execution of documents, and #130 (comment) for |
Or maybe: rules:
rmd_document:
call: knit_with_deps(target_name, dep_names)
dep_call: figure_out_additional_knitr_deps(dep_names)
targets:
reports/final.html:
type: rmd_document
depends:
- reports/final.Rmd |
👍 - totally agree |
Yes, custom rules ultimately would be great! Especially because if done right a custom rule could generate anything, including holding the definition of a class defined in a custom package, and if the class changes, the code should be re-run .... (another use case I found yesterday) |
I've just started using
remake
, and it is awesome. Given thatrmarkdown
has really nailed going from Rmd to PDF, HTML, etc, I was thinking it would be worth having a type similar toknitr: TRUE
, but would bermarkdown: TRUE
that would callrmarkdown::render
to generate the target, and keep track of when the input file changes.Looking at the
remake_from_knitr
code, I don't think it should be too hard.Would such a PR be of interest?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: