Jacob Wujciak-Jens

Yes that is possible https://docs.github.com/en/rest/issues/comments#update-an-issue-comment I will take a look (no promise when though).

You can easily implement this change directly in your workflow file by adding the [`paths` node:](https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/workflow-syntax-for-github-actions#example-including-paths) ```yml on: pull_request: paths: # Filter by dir - "r/**" - "src/**" - "touchstone/**"...

Actually this will only overwrite the dependencies... we would need some thing like a private library similar to what {pak} does. I'll look into how complex that is and if...

I agree, that would be good, maybe something like `max_performance_loss` or something.

You mean the significance marker on +.25 +3.25%? We actually don't calculate anything (we could ofc do t.test and check p value) but rather check if the confidence interval contains...

Hm I haven't touched that part of the code yet but I can have a look.

It is a blue moon:  https://github.com/kgoldfeld/simstudy/pull/122 tangential to this issue: I have started a little project to collect data about GHA benchmarking, we could also use it to check...

On another tangent: while working on the project above I streamlined the github action for benchmarking and commenting into a single yaml and without using the cancle action: https://github.com/assignUser/simstudy/blob/new-gha/.github/workflows/touchstone-receive.yaml Should...

> Re one action: I don't think it's documented (apart maybe got commits, PRs) but the reason there are two actions is purely security. It used to be one, but...

I have published in JOSS which uses the same peer review process as ropensci, overall a good experience! As I see it {touchstone} is within scope of rOpensci as ['workflow...