feat: in tech mix, distinguish similarly named scenarios by prepending source

[jdhoffa]

Maybe closes #74
Relates to AB#10962

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 1 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 0.81%. Comparing base (a3010b7) to head (ec84c86).

Files	Patch %	Lines
R/prep_techexposure_future.R	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##            main     #75      +/-   ##
========================================
- Coverage   0.81%   0.81%   -0.01%     
========================================
  Files         25      25              
  Lines       1594    1595       +1     
========================================
  Hits          13      13              
- Misses      1581    1582       +1     

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

[jdhoffa]

@cjyetman @MonikaFu given that we barely have any tests in this repo together (and adding a good testing infrastructure is a large task unto itself), I would elect to ignore the 2 failing test coverage checks.

[cjyetman]

@cjyetman @MonikaFu given that we barely have any tests in this repo together (and adding a good testing infrastructure is a large task unto itself), I would elect to ignore the 2 failing test coverage checks.

I'm not a fan of Codecov failing tests because of lack of coverage. It's there to give us information, not tell us we shouldn't merge things.