Update preamble prompt

[sbreitbart-NOAA]

What is the feature?

• Clarify preamble prompt from create_template() as per [Bug]: 'output_and_quantities' chunk in skeleton missing line to load in model results #416 (comment)

How have you implemented the solution?

• Clarifying the prompt

Does the PR impact any other area of the project, maybe another repo?

• No

[github-actions]

Checklist

• PR base branch is accurate
• Is the code concise?
• Comments are clear and useful.
• Can you remove or combine any arguments?
• Do argument contain defaults (if appliable)?
• Code is documented and example provided (Roxygen).
• Did you make a test (testthat)?
• Was this tested under multiple scenarios?
• Did you run devtools::check()?

[github-actions]

Code Metrics Report

Coverage	Code to Test Ratio	Test Execution Time
37.1%	1:0.2	28s

Code coverage of files in pull request scope (40.4%)

Files	Coverage
R/create_template.R	40.4%

---

Reported by octocov

[Schiano-NOAA]

Can you change the message so it matches the one in the issue? I think the current language is not accurate. We don't want to say they "may" need a new preamble, but more so it will be overwritten so do you want to keep it or not. I think the language in the issue "Update the preamble to match entered arguments? (Y/N)" is closer to what we want here

[sbreitbart-NOAA]

Can you change the message so it matches the one in the issue? I think the current language is not accurate. We don't want to say they "may" need a new preamble, but more so it will be overwritten so do you want to keep it or not. I think the language in the issue "Update the preamble to match entered arguments? (Y/N)" is closer to what we want here

The reason why I didn't take the language from the issue is that it will change the direction of the question. Currently, "yes" would entail keeping the preamble, and with the "update the preamble..." question, "yes" would entail changing the preamble. I thought the user may find this confusing if they've already grown accustomed to it, but it's not anything as major as a breaking change- just something to be aware of.

If you're alright with that, I can change the question to the one from the issue 👍

[Schiano-NOAA]

That makes sense and works for me!

…

On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 5:00 PM Sophie Breitbart ***@***.***> wrote: *sbreitbart-NOAA* left a comment (nmfs-ost/asar#430) <#430 (comment)> Can you change the message so it matches the one in the issue? I think the current language is not accurate. We don't want to say they "may" need a new preamble, but more so it will be overwritten so do you want to keep it or not. I think the language in the issue "Update the preamble to match entered arguments? (Y/N)" is closer to what we want here The reason why I didn't take the language from the issue is that it will change the direction of the question. Currently, "yes" would entail keeping the preamble, and with the "update the preamble..." question, "yes" would entail changing the preamble. I thought the user may find this confusing if they've already grown accustomed to it, but it's not anything as major as a breaking change- just something to be aware of. If you're alright with that, I can change the question to the one from the issue 👍 — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#430 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/A55RLSXECJ4XZTM5DVNJAZD4O5IXNAVCNFSM6AAAAACWEWZ2CSVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZTSOJTHAYTEOJZGI> . You are receiving this because your review was requested.Message ID: ***@***.***>