goodpractice checks

[goldingn]

I used the goodpractice package to run some automated code checks of sdmbench. Below are some super minor style/robustness issues it flagged that you could change if you wanted to.

On two lines (here and here) you used = for assignment, instead of <- which you used everywhere else.

On quite a few lines of the shiny server file there are more than 80 characters per line, which makes it a bit difficult to read (particularly here). It would be worth reformatting that code to have shorter lines

On this line of the shiny server, you used the code pattern: 1:length(x), but seq_along(x) is (very mildly) preferable (in general), since in the case x has length 0 (e.g. an empty list), 1:length(x) returns c(1L, 0L), but seq_along returns integer(0).

That's all it found though, and these are very minor, which is great! I run those checks on packages quite regularly, and the reports are rarely as short as that.

[boyanangelov]

I implemented the changes, hope the code is more readable now. Thanks a lot for letting me know about the goodpractice package - I will have a look and start using it. I changed the code pattern as well, I didn't know it worked this way, thanks!