Closed gartician closed 1 year ago
Hi @gartician,
Thank you making the changes to CITEViz following the pre-review comments. The interoperability with SingleCellExperiment requirement is great to have and, overall, I now find the app much simpler to try out and use.
For acceptance into Bioconductor, there are a number of Required points, as well as Recommended points, that I would ask you to first please address. Would you please provide line-by-line comments to my initial review so that I know what changes I'm looking for in my re-review.
Cheers, Pete
EH7739
(Seurat-formatted) or EH7740
(SingleCellExperiment-format) can be loaded. That it causes problems even for the SingleCellExperiment-formatted object suggests it's a problem with the CITEVizTestData package.# Error without Seurat loaded/attached.
suppressPackageStartupMessages(library(ExperimentHub))
eh <- ExperimentHub()
#> snapshotDate(): 2022-11-21
# Download and load the Seurat-formatted object.
eh[["EH7739"]]
#> see ?CITEVizTestData and browseVignettes('CITEVizTestData') for documentation
#> loading from cache
#> require("SeuratObject")
#> Loading required package: Seurat
#> Error: package or namespace load failed for 'Seurat' in .doLoadActions(where, attach):
#> error in load action .__A__.1 for package RcppAnnoy: loadModule(module = "AnnoyAngular", what = TRUE, env = ns, loadNow = TRUE): Unable to load module "AnnoyAngular": attempt to apply non-function
#> Error: failed to load resource
#> name: EH7739
#> title: CITEVizTestDataSeurat
#> reason: unable to find required package 'Seurat'
Created on 2022-11-22 with reprex v2.0.2
# Things work fine if Seurat is loaded/attached.
suppressPackageStartupMessages(library(ExperimentHub))
suppressPackageStartupMessages(library(Seurat))
eh <- ExperimentHub()
#> snapshotDate(): 2022-11-21
# Download and load the Seurat-formatted object.
eh[["EH7739"]]
#> see ?CITEVizTestData and browseVignettes('CITEVizTestData') for documentation
#> loading from cache
#> An object of class Seurat
#> 20957 features across 2500 samples within 2 assays
#> Active assay: SCT (20729 features, 5000 variable features)
#> 1 other assay present: ADT
#> 6 dimensional reductions calculated: apca, aumap, pca, spca, umap, wnn.umap
Created on 2022-11-22 with reprex v2.0.2
iSEEu::modeGating()
), so some comparison to these would be good, but they don't seem as immediately powerful or smooth as what's available in CITEViz (although @kevinrue as developer of iSEE may well disagree with me :) ). In any case, the purpose of such a comparison is not about establishing superiority of one package over another, but to help a user navigate through the various options available to them.DESCRIPTION
because it's a development-time dependency rather than something required to build, install, or use the software.BugReports
field to the DESCRIPTION
linking to the GitHub repo's issues page.covr::report()
to identify under-tested areas of the package..github
, perhaps dev
, and other development-only files and directories in the .Rbuildignore
file.Sorry, I previously forgot to include some Recommended points and have just added them to the above list.
Hi @gartician,
Do you intend to continue with this submission? We like to see some activity on the issue within 3 weeks. It's no problem if it's taking longer, but we will close the issue and you can re-open it when you are ready.
If you wish to procees, when you are ready with changes, simply comment back here that you would like the issue reopened.
Cheers, Pete
This issue is being closed because there has been no progress for an extended period of time. You may reopen the issue when you have the time to actively participate in the review / submission process. Please also keep in mind that a package accepted to Bioconductor requires a commitment on your part to ongoing maintenance.
Thank you for your interest in Bioconductor.
I hope I'm not re-opening this by commenting, but the notification reminded me that I was pinged.
Please include in the vignette a brief comparison to any other CRAN or Bioconductor-hosted packages that implement similar functionality. For example, and in particular, iSEE includes similar functionality to the 'Quality Assurance', 'Clustering', and 'Feature Expression' panels of CITEViz. However, CITEViz's raison d'etre, 'Classifying Cell Clusters in CITE-Seq Data using the Flow Cytometry Gating Workflow', is where CITEViz distinguishes itself, I think, both in terms of purpose and implementation. There is some basic gating functionality in iSEE (see https://www.bioconductor.org/packages/devel/bioc/vignettes/iSEE/inst/doc/links.html#22_Selection_effects) and the add-on iSEEu includes some more advanced gating functionality (see iSEEu::modeGating()), so some comparison to these would be good, but they don't seem as immediately powerful or smooth as what's available in CITEViz (although @kevinrue as developer of iSEE may well disagree with me :) ). In any case, the purpose of such a comparison is not about establishing superiority of one package over another, but to help a user navigate through the various options available to them.
I don't disagree. I actually fully agree with the motivation of the comment. iSEE does provide gating functionality, but since it was designed as a general-purpose tool rather than a cytometry-specific one, there are some design choices that prevent us from competing with the performance of specialised tools, no doubt about that.
Without asking excessive work from the author, I think it would be beneficial to the community and prospective users if the author could add "a brief comparison to other CRAN or Bioconductor-hosted packages that implement similar functionality", indeed.
Update the following URL to point to the GitHub repository of the package you wish to submit to Bioconductor
Confirm the following by editing each check box to '[x]'
[x] I understand that by submitting my package to Bioconductor, the package source and all review commentary are visible to the general public.
[x] I have read the Bioconductor Package Submission instructions. My package is consistent with the Bioconductor Package Guidelines.
[x] I understand Bioconductor Package Naming Policy and acknowledge Bioconductor may retain use of package name.
[x] I understand that a minimum requirement for package acceptance is to pass R CMD check and R CMD BiocCheck with no ERROR or WARNINGS. Passing these checks does not result in automatic acceptance. The package will then undergo a formal review and recommendations for acceptance regarding other Bioconductor standards will be addressed.
[x] My package addresses statistical or bioinformatic issues related to the analysis and comprehension of high throughput genomic data.
[x] I am committed to the long-term maintenance of my package. This includes monitoring the support site for issues that users may have, subscribing to the bioc-devel mailing list to stay aware of developments in the Bioconductor community, responding promptly to requests for updates from the Core team in response to changes in R or underlying software.
[x] I am familiar with the Bioconductor code of conduct and agree to abide by it.
I am familiar with the essential aspects of Bioconductor software management, including:
For questions/help about the submission process, including questions about the output of the automatic reports generated by the SPB (Single Package Builder), please use the #package-submission channel of our Community Slack. Follow the link on the home page of the Bioconductor website to sign up.