Edit readme

[k-doering-NOAA]

What is the feature?

• Add R universe badge to readme
• Move developer install instructions to collaborative workflow (just link it here)

Addresses NOAA-FIMS/collaborative_workflow#98

How have you implemented the solution?

Does the PR impact any other area of the project?

How to test this change

Note the link should work on the readme after NOAA-FIMS/collaborative_workflow#146 is merged in.

Developer pre-PR checklist

• I relied on GitHub actions to 🧪 things for me while I sat on the 🛋️.

[github-actions]

Instructions for code reviewer

Hello reviewer, thanks for taking the time to review this PR!

• Please use this checklist during your review, checking off items that you have verified are complete!
• For PRs that don't make changes to code (e.g., changes to README.md or Github actions workflows), feel free to skip over items on the checklist that are not relevant. Remember it is still important to do a thorough review.
• Then, comment on the pull request with your review indicating where you have questions or changes need to be made before merging.
• Remember to review every line of code you’ve been asked to review, look at the context, make sure you’re improving code health, and compliment developers on good things that they do.
• PR reviews are a great way to learn, so feel free to share your tips and tricks. However, for optional changes (i.e., not required for merging), please include nit: (for nitpicking) before making the suggestion. For example, nit: I prefer using a data.frame() instead of a matrix because...
• Engage with the developer when they respond to comments and check off additional boxes as they become complete so the PR can be merged in when all the tasks are fulfilled. Make it clear when this has been reached by commenting on the PR with something like This PR is now ready to be merged, no changes needed.

Checklist

• The PR is requested to be merged into the appropriate branch (typically main)
• The code is well-designed.
• The functionality is good for the users of the code.
• Any User Interface changes are sensible and look good.
• The code isn’t more complex than it needs to be.
• Code coverage remains high, indicating the new code is tested.
• The developer used clear names for everything.
• Comments are clear and useful, and mostly explain why instead of what.
• Code is appropriately documented (doxygen and roxygen).

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 78.56%. Comparing base (2c16ff4) to head (0d1acab).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #636   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   78.56%   78.56%           
=======================================
  Files          36       36           
  Lines        1945     1945           
  Branches      141      141           
=======================================
  Hits         1528     1528           
  Misses        374      374           
  Partials       43       43           

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

[kellijohnson-NOAA]

Thanks @k-doering-NOAA for putting so much work into organizing this information. I love the move of the developer information to the collaborative workflow. This will help new users a lot I think so that they are not overwhelmed by the amount of information present. I made one comment about the location of the badge but I will leave that up to you.

[k-doering-NOAA]

Great suggestion @kellijohnson-NOAA ! I changed the badge location. Feel free to merge in when https://github.com/NOAA-FIMS/collaborative_workflow/tree/codespaces is also ready to merge in.

[kellijohnson-NOAA]

I squashed the commits and will merge into main once the checks are complete.