docs: remove explicit cookbook section numbering

[jdhoffa]

The order is defined implicitly by the order in which it appears on the pkgdown.yml:

pacta.multi.loanbook/_pkgdown.yml

Lines 41 to 46 in 3f08f0d

	contents:
	- cookbook_overview
	- cookbook_preparatory_steps
	- cookbook_running_the_analysis
	- cookbook_interpretation
	- cookbook_advanced_use_cases

Explicit numbering of the sections is superfluous and clunky.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 51.61%. Comparing base (3f08f0d) to head (6bda58b).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #262   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   51.61%   51.61%           
=======================================
  Files          29       29           
  Lines        3189     3189           
=======================================
  Hits         1646     1646           
  Misses       1543     1543           

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

---

🚨 Try these New Features:

• Flaky Tests Detection - Detect and resolve failed and flaky tests

[cjyetman]

I wonder if they even need the "Cookbook - " prefix? Somewhat clear from the section header?

[jdhoffa]

I wonder if they even need the "Cookbook - " prefix? Somewhat clear from the section header?

See the code, I had removed that too haha

[jacobvjk]

If we do this, I think it would be good to add an overview at least to the first chapter that describes what is to come, just for user orientation. While I agree that it is implicit from the dropdown in the nav bar, that is not exactly a typical way to present the contents one can expect from a document.. I think the target audience is not necessarily one that hangs out on GH a lot, so I think being a bit more explicit somewhere in the cook book does not hurt

Also, the links at the bottom of the chapters should be renamed as well then

[jdhoffa]

That makes sense. Then I will adjust.

[jacobvjk]

bit unsure why the macos check keeps failing, the same failure has recently been popping up elsewhere, but re-triggering it has usually solved it.. guess we may just have to wait and see, since it seems to be related to the latest R version

[cjyetman]

bit unsure why the macos check keeps failing, the same failure has recently been popping up elsewhere, but re-triggering it has usually solved it.. guess we may just have to wait and see, since it seems to be related to the latest R version

definitely something widespread going on:
r-lib/actions#950
r-lib/actions#948

Looks like either an intermittent GH Actions network problem, or something to do with the latest GH Actions macOS runners being arm64 and not x86 and possibly not building R or its dependencies properly.

[cjyetman]

likely something with the macos-latest GH Action runner
r-lib/actions#948 (comment)

supposedly a new version (20241022.361) is currently rolling out, last run here failed with the old version (20241119.509) at 2024.11.23 17:42 GMT+1
https://github.com/RMI-PACTA/pacta.multi.loanbook/actions/runs/11973244713/job/33424388196#step:1:9

more detail likely related: actions/runner-images#10864 (comment)

[cjyetman]

macOS-latest failure resolved by GitHub's latest macOS 14 runner image 20241125.556
https://github.com/actions/runner-images/releases/tag/macos-14-arm64%2F20241125.556

[jacobvjk]

That makes sense. Then I will adjust.

I took the liberty to address this, so that we can close this PR soon @jdhoffa

[jdhoffa]

Thank you!! I will leave the rest of this PR to you then.
Feel free to open it from Draft whenever you're ready

[cjyetman]

looks good, just one nit comment about making the section descriptions linkable