Jmr/v5 docs

[JavierMtzRdz]

addresses issue(s) #ISSUE

Summary:

Adds and updates documentation for the Delphi V5 API, covering two new data sources and improvements to the V5 reference pages.

• Added an initial V5 subpage with an overview of the API and its structure.
• Added a link to the V5 API from the main documentation index.
• Rearranged the subpages to place the V5 subpage second.
• Created the v5-signals/ folder and the "Sources and Signals" subpage.
• Added a formatted NWSS signal page based on @dsweber2 's documentation.
• Added a new V5 signal page documenting the Epic Cosmos source based on @aysim319 's documentation.
• Added references from the signal index and main V5 page.

TODO:

• Add "Manually Constructing V5 Queries" subpage
• Include a subpage for time and geo type.
• Finish the documentation subpages for the other available sources.
  • NHSN
  • NSSP
  • Claims
  • Meta

Prerequisites:

• Unless it is a documentation hotfix it should be merged against the dev branch
• Branch is up-to-date with the branch to be merged with, i.e. dev
• Build is successful
• Code is cleaned up and formatted

[dsweber2]

I also hacked together something that would let us live-fill the temporal scope start/latest data available into the docs using the metadata endpoint, but I'll put that in a PR on this

[dsweber2]

In general this maybe centers the old API a little bit to much for a longterm version of this, but for now this works fine

[JavierMtzRdz]

We can remove the second paragraph if preferred. I just wanted to give a little context.

[dsweber2]

I think it's worth talking about, I'm not sure having it be the ~first thing you see in the docs is right. Seems like something for a migration section (which we may also want w/a description of the key differences (all dates vs ideosyncratic ints, different endpoint structure, a couple of translation of typical calls).

I don't think it's make or break but at some point we should probably make it like that.

[JavierMtzRdz]

Agreed, I've moved it to a section below to allow for a more detailed discussion of the migration later

[JavierMtzRdz]

I have addressed previous comments.

[JavierMtzRdz]

Agreed, I've moved it to a section below to allow for a more detailed discussion of the migration later

[nolangormley]

Reporting cadence is spotty at best. I think it's supposed to be biweekly, but we often get a whole month of lag. Not sure how to put that all into nice documentation words though

[dsweber2]

biweekly-monthly maybe? not ideal, probably best to elaborate in text

[JavierMtzRdz]

I selected Irregular and included a note because it varies significantly.

library(epidatr)
library(dplyr)

archive_df <- epidata_archive(
  source = "pophive",
  signal = "covid_pct_ed",
  geo_type = "state"
)

archive_df %>%
  distinct(report_time) %>%
  arrange(report_time) %>%
  mutate(days_since_last = as.numeric(difftime(report_time, lag(report_time), units = "days"))) %>%
 count(days_since_last)
# A tibble: 13 × 2
   days_since_last     n
             <dbl> <int>
 1               1     2
 2               7     1
 3               8     1
 4              13     1
 5              14     3
 6              15     2
 7              16     2
 8              17     1
 9              19     1
10              20     1
11              27     1
12              37     1
13              NA     1

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud