UBC-MDS / PyDataPeek

MIT License
1 stars 1 forks source link

Submission: PyDataPeek Draft #49

Open MrThomasPin opened 4 years ago

MrThomasPin commented 4 years ago

Submitting Author: Thomas Pin @MrThomasPin Package Name: PyDataPeek One-Line Description of Package: Simple EDA for .csv or .xlsx documents Repository Link: Repo Link Version submitted:
Editor: @kvarada
Reviewer 1: Elliott Ribner @elliott-ribner Reviewer 2: Aman Kumar Garg @amank90 Archive: TBD
Version accepted: TBD


Description

PyDataPeek is a package that enables data scientists to efficiently generate a visual summary of a dataset. This package includes functions that show the size of the dataset, a visual summary of missing data, a sample of the dataset showing the data types as well as exploratory visualizations for quantitative and qualitative data.

Scope

* Please fill out a pre-submission inquiry before submitting a data visualization package. For more info, see this section of our guidebook.

Explain how and why the package falls under these categories (briefly, 1-2 sentences):

Who is the target audience and what are scientific applications of this package?

Are there other Python packages that accomplish the same thing? If so, how does yours differ?

Several Python packages are available that support exploratory data analysis but none are specific to the targeted use cases here - a simple and technologically friendly way of summarizing data.

MrThomasPin commented 4 years ago

Technical checks

For details about the pyOpenSci packaging requirements, see our packaging guide. Confirm each of the following by checking the box. This package:

MrThomasPin commented 4 years ago

Publication options

JOSS Checks - [ ] The package has an **obvious research application** according to JOSS's definition in their [submission requirements](https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html#submission-requirements). Be aware that completing the pyOpenSci review process **does not** guarantee acceptance to JOSS. Be sure to read their submission requirements (linked above) if you are interested in submitting to JOSS. - [ ] The package is not a "minor utility" as defined by JOSS's [submission requirements](https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html#submission-requirements): "Minor 'utility' packages, including 'thin' API clients, are not acceptable." pyOpenSci welcomes these packages under "Data Retrieval", but JOSS has slightly different criteria. - [ ] The package contains a `paper.md` matching [JOSS's requirements](https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html#what-should-my-paper-contain) with a high-level description in the package root or in `inst/`. - [ ] The package is deposited in a long-term repository with the DOI: *Note: Do not submit your package separately to JOSS*
MrThomasPin commented 4 years ago

Are you OK with Reviewers Submitting Issues and/or pull requests to your Repo Directly?

This option will allow reviewers to open smaller issues that can then be linked to PR's rather than submitting a more dense text based review. It will also allow you to demonstrate addressing the issue via PR links.

MrThomasPin commented 4 years ago

Code of conduct

P.S. Have feedback/comments about our review process? Leave a comment here

Editor and Review Templates

Editor and review templates can be found here

ribner commented 4 years ago

Reviewer: Elliott

Package Review

Documentation

The package includes all the following forms of documentation:

Readme requirements The package meets the readme requirements below:

The README should include, from top to bottom:

Functionality

Collecting pydatapeek
  Downloading https://test-files.pythonhosted.org/packages/1e/27/5a49ffb2261be9541e88d0ae9e076862e2a8029d779a78812a5f210f850f/pydatapeek-0.1.9-py3-none-any.whl
ERROR: Could not find a version that satisfies the requirement altair_saver<0.2.0,>=0.1.0 (from pydatapeek) (from versions: none)
ERROR: No matching distribution found for altair_saver<0.2.0,>=0.1.0 (from pydatapeek)

Final approval (post-review)

Estimated hours spent reviewing: 4

---#### Review Comments

Altogether, great job on the project. I think there is many useful features contained in the package, and it is well implemented! I found the code and structure, well written, and well documented. I found very few points to improve, but if time allowed to fix there is three things worth noting:

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Elliott Ribner