Last updated: 2022-11-01

Checks: 2 0

Knit directory: dgrp-starve/

This reproducible R Markdown analysis was created with workflowr (version 1.7.0). The Checks tab describes the reproducibility checks that were applied when the results were created. The Past versions tab lists the development history.

Great! Since the R Markdown file has been committed to the Git repository, you know the exact version of the code that produced these results.

Great! You are using Git for version control. Tracking code development and connecting the code version to the results is critical for reproducibility.

The results in this page were generated with repository version b32ebcc. See the Past versions tab to see a history of the changes made to the R Markdown and HTML files.

Note that you need to be careful to ensure that all relevant files for the analysis have been committed to Git prior to generating the results (you can use wflow_publish or wflow_git_commit). workflowr only checks the R Markdown file, but you know if there are other scripts or data files that it depends on. Below is the status of the Git repository when the results were generated:

Untracked files:
    Untracked:  .Rprofile
    Untracked:  .gitattributes
    Untracked:  .gitignore
    Untracked:  _workflowr.yml
    Untracked:  analysis/
    Untracked:  code/
    Untracked:  data/
    Untracked:  dgrp-starve.Rproj
    Untracked:  output/

Unstaged changes:
    Deleted:    Summary.png
    Deleted:    Summary2.png
    Deleted:    diffComp.R
    Deleted:    eqtl-analysis.R
    Deleted:    qtl-starve.R
    Deleted:    rMechanics.R
    Deleted:    starveAll.csv
    Deleted:    starveDiff.csv
    Deleted:    starveF.csv
    Deleted:    starveM.csv

Note that any generated files, e.g. HTML, png, CSS, etc., are not included in this status report because it is ok for generated content to have uncommitted changes.

There are no past versions. Publish this analysis with wflow_publish() to start tracking its development.

What license are you using for your code? See for help deciding. It’s a convention to save a file LICENSE in the root of your Git repo that contains the license text.

What license are you using for the written content on your site? It is traditional to choose a Creative Commons license for this type of content.

How should others cite your work? It’s a convention to save a file CITATION in the root of your Git repo that contains the citation information.