renv 1.0.11

[pascal-sauer]

🐦 Description of this PR 🐦

• update renv/activate.R to renv 1.0.11

🔧 Checklist for PR creator 🔧

• Label pull request from the label list.

  • Low risk: Simple bugfixes (missing files, updated documentation, typos) or changes in start or output scripts
  • Medium risk: Uncritical changes in the model core (e.g. moderate modifications in non-default realizations)
  • High risk: Critical changes in model core or default settings (e.g. changing a model default or adjusting a core mechanic in the model)

• Self-review own code

  • No hard coded numbers and cluster/country/region names.
  • The new code doesn't contain declared but unused parameters or variables.
  • magpie4 R library has been updated accordingly and backwards compatible where necessary.
  • scenario_config.csv has been updated accordingly (important if default.cfg has been updated)

• Document changes

  • Add changes to CHANGELOG.md
  • Where relevant, put In-code documentation comments
  • Properly address updates in interfaces in the module documentations
  • run goxygen::goxygen() and verify the modified code is properly documented

• Perform test runs

  • Low risk:
    • Run a compilation check via Rscript start.R --> "compilation check"
  • Medium risk:
    • Run test runs via Rscript start.R --> "test runs"
    • Check logs for errors/warnings
  • High risk:
    • Run test runs via Rscript start.R --> "test runs"
    • Check logs for errors/warnings
    • Default run from the PR target branch for comparison
    • Provide relevant comparison plots (land-use, emissions, food prices, land-use intensity,...)

📉 Performance changes 📈

• Current develop branch default : ** mins
• This PR's default : ** mins

🚨 Checklist for reviewer 🚨

• PR is labeled correctly
• Code changes look reasonable
  • No hard coded numbers and cluster/country/region names.
  • No unnecessary increase in module interfaces
  • model behavior/performance is satisfactory.
• Changes are properly documented
  • CHANGELOG is updated correctly
  • Updates in interfaces have been properly addressed in the module documentations
  • In-code documentation looks appropriate
• content review done (at least 1)
• RSE review done (at least 1)