Submission Group 4: slimReda (R)

name: slimReda about: A slim R package for EDA

Submitting Author Names and Github Handles: Simon Guo ( !--author1-->@y248guo@anthea98@khalidcawl@thayeylolu<!--end-author4--)

Submitting Author Github Handle: !--author1-->@y248guo<!--end-author1-- Other Package Authors Github handles: (comma separated, delete if none) @anthea98, @khalidcawl, @thayeylolu Repository: https://github.com/UBC-MDS/slimreda Version submitted: 0.2.0 Submission type: Standard Editor: Simon Guo Reviewers: Alex Guo, Nagraj Rao, Adrianne Leung, Rakesh Pandey

Language: en

Paste the full DESCRIPTION file inside a code block below:

Package: slimreda
Title: Exploratory Data Analysis 
Version: 0.0.0.9000
Authors@R: 
      c(person("Anthea", "Chen",, "anthea.chen@ubc.ca", role = c("ctb")),
      person("Khalid", "Abdilahi", ,  "khalid.abdilahi@ubc.ca", role = "ctb"),
      person("Simon", "Guo", , "simon.guo@ubc.ca", role = "ctb"),
      person("Taiwo", "Owosenii", , "thayehas@ubc.ca", role = c("aut","ctb","cre")))
Description: 
    Exploratory Data Analysis is an important preparatory work to help data scientists understand and clean up 
    data sets before machine learning begins. However, this step also involves a lot of repetitive tasks. 
    In this context, slimeda will help data scientists quickly complete the initial work of EDA and gain a preliminary understanding of the data.
License: MIT + file LICENSE
Encoding: UTF-8
LazyData: true
Roxygen: list(markdown = TRUE)
RoxygenNote: 7.1.1
Suggests: 
    testthat (>= 3.0.0)
Config/testthat/edition: 3
Imports: 
    purrr,
    dplyr,
    lubridate,
    tibble,
    ggplot2,
    palmerpenguins,
    rlang,
    tidyr

Scope

Please indicate which category or categories from our package fit policies this package falls under: (Please check an appropriate box below. If you are unsure, we suggest you make a pre-submission inquiry.):
- [ ] data retrieval
- [X] data extraction
- [X] data munging
- [ ] data deposition
- [ ] workflow automation
- [ ] version control
- [ ] citation management and bibliometrics
- [ ] scientific software wrappers
- [ ] field and lab reproducibility tools
- [ ] database software bindings
- [ ] geospatial data
- [ ] text analysis
Explain how and why the package falls under these categories (briefly, 1-2 sentences):

The package slimreda explores the dataset by creating histograms and correlation plots, in addition to that we have functions for counting missing values and counting unique values

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

Researchers or data analysts who would like to work with EDA

Are there other R packages that accomplish the same thing? If so, how does yours differ or meet our criteria for best-in-category?

Yes, but our R package aims to provide a simple straightforward modifiable objects with maximum flexibility. Also comparing many mainstream packages, our package is lighter and simpler.

(If applicable) Does your package comply with our guidance around Ethics, Data Privacy and Human Subjects Research?

No

If you made a pre-submission inquiry, please paste the link to the corresponding issue, forum post, or other discussion, or @tag the editor you contacted.
Explain reasons for any pkgcheck items which your package is unable to pass.

Technical checks

Confirm each of the following by checking the box.

[X] I have read the guide for authors and rOpenSci packaging guide.

This package:

[X] does not violate the Terms of Service of any service it interacts with.
[X] has a CRAN and OSI accepted license.
[X] contains a README with instructions for installing the development version.
[X] includes documentation with examples for all functions, created with roxygen2.
[X] contains a vignette with examples of its essential functions and uses.
[X] has a test suite.
[X] has continuous integration, including reporting of test coverage using services such as Travis CI, Coveralls and/or CodeCov.

Publication options

[ ] Do you intend for this package to go on CRAN?
[ ] Do you intend for this package to go on Bioconductor?
[ ] Do you wish to submit an Applications Article about your package to Methods in Ecology and Evolution? If so:

MEE Options

- [ ] The package is novel and will be of interest to the broad readership of the journal. - [ ] The manuscript describing the package is no longer than 3000 words. - [ ] You intend to archive the code for the package in a long-term repository which meets the requirements of the journal (see [MEE's Policy on Publishing Code](http://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/hub/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)2041-210X/journal-resources/policy-on-publishing-code.html)) - (*Scope: Do consider MEE's [Aims and Scope](http://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/hub/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)2041-210X/aims-and-scope/read-full-aims-and-scope.html) for your manuscript. We make no guarantee that your manuscript will be within MEE scope.*) - (*Although not required, we strongly recommend having a full manuscript prepared when you submit here.*) - (*Please do not submit your package separately to Methods in Ecology and Evolution*)

Code of conduct

[X] I agree to abide by rOpenSci's Code of Conduct during the review process and in maintaining my package should it be accepted.

Package Review

Please check off boxes as applicable, and elaborate in comments below. Your review is not limited to these topics, as described in the reviewer guide

Briefly describe any working relationship you have (had) with the package authors.
[x] As the reviewer I confirm that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work (if you are unsure whether you are in conflict, please speak to your editor before starting your review).

Documentation

The package includes all the following forms of documentation:

[x] A statement of need: clearly stating problems the software is designed to solve and its target audience in README
[x] Installation instructions: for the development version of package and any non-standard dependencies in README
[x] Vignette(s): demonstrating major functionality that runs successfully locally
[x] Function Documentation: for all exported functions
[x] Examples: (that run successfully locally) for all exported functions
[x] Community guidelines: including contribution guidelines in the README or CONTRIBUTING, and DESCRIPTION with URL, BugReports and Maintainer (which may be autogenerated via Authors@R).

Functionality

[x] Installation: Installation succeeds as documented.
[x] Functionality: Any functional claims of the software been confirmed.
[x] Performance: Any performance claims of the software been confirmed.
[x] Automated tests: Unit tests cover essential functions of the package and a reasonable range of inputs and conditions. All tests pass on the local machine.
[x] Packaging guidelines: The package conforms to the rOpenSci packaging guidelines.

Estimated hours spent reviewing: 1 hour

[x] Should the author(s) deem it appropriate, I agree to be acknowledged as a package reviewer ("rev" role) in the package DESCRIPTION file.

Review Comments

Great job guys! I find slimreda a very useful package for initial EDA of any numerical analysis. It is a fairly universal package for application in many fields. The package is organized well with clear differentiation between functions so that user can pick for their own usage.

I had no issues installing the package following the instructions on Windows. Good work!
The cat_unique_counts script have package installation before the function such as dplyr, lubridate etc. It could be incorporated within the function and use NAMESPACE to identify the function from different packages.
It would be a good feature to allow users to export the graphs of correlation heat map or histograms for reporting.
A badge for code coverage could be included in README so that users can assess how robust the scripts are.
There is no link to the Contributing.md file in the Contributing section of the README. Adding a link could be useful from a user perspective.
Author contact details could be included in the Code of Conduct.

Package Review

Please check off boxes as applicable, and elaborate in comments below. Your review is not limited to these topics, as described in the reviewer guide

Briefly describe any working relationship you have (had) with the package authors.
[x] As the reviewer I confirm that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work (if you are unsure whether you are in conflict, please speak to your editor before starting your review).

Documentation

The package includes all the following forms of documentation:

[x] A statement of need: clearly stating problems the software is designed to solve and its target audience in README
[x] Installation instructions: for the development version of package and any non-standard dependencies in README
[x] Vignette(s): demonstrating major functionality that runs successfully locally
[x] Function Documentation: for all exported functions
[x] Examples: (that run successfully locally) for all exported functions
[x] Community guidelines: including contribution guidelines in the README or CONTRIBUTING, and DESCRIPTION with URL, BugReports and Maintainer (which may be autogenerated via Authors@R).

Functionality

[x] Installation: Installation succeeds as documented.
[x] Functionality: Any functional claims of the software been confirmed.
[x] Performance: Any performance claims of the software been confirmed.
[x] Automated tests: Unit tests cover essential functions of the package and a reasonable range of inputs and conditions. All tests pass on the local machine.
[x] Packaging guidelines: The package conforms to the rOpenSci packaging guidelines.

Estimated hours spent reviewing: 1.5 hours

[x] Should the author(s) deem it appropriate, I agree to be acknowledged as a package reviewer ("rev" role) in the package DESCRIPTION file.

Review Comments.

EDA is so critical for any analysis, and to that extent, I really appreciate the efforts made by the team to make the EDA process clean, straightforward, and intuitive. Thank you for your splendid work!

The downloading process works, and the commands work as displayed in the README. Furthermore, just to double check, I downloaded the project, and ran a check and test command, and everything went smoothly.

While the package is already an A+ level in my assessment, here are a few suggestions for your kind consideration, which would make it even more intuitive for a first time user.

1) Since we did not need to officially publish the package on CRAN, it might be worthwhile to remove this portion from the README.

2) During installation, I was prompted a message - do you want to install the latest version of the dependencies used for your package. It might be useful for the user to specify what option to pick (Yes, No, from Cran etc.).

3) It might be useful to have automated titles for the images or correlation plot being generated.

4) For the miss_count function, the percentages that are displayed could be multiplied by 100 instead of showcasing in decimals.

5) I noticed that the code coverage badge is not included in the README. I would consider adding the same.

6) In the Code of Conduct, under Enforcement, the [INSERT CONTACT METHOD] should be filled.

Package Review

Please check off boxes as applicable, and elaborate in comments below. Your review is not limited to these topics, as described in the reviewer guide

Briefly describe any working relationship you have (had) with the package authors.
[x] As the reviewer I confirm that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work (if you are unsure whether you are in conflict, please speak to your editor before starting your review).

Documentation

The package includes all the following forms of documentation:

[x] A statement of need: clearly stating problems the software is designed to solve and its target audience in README
[x] Installation instructions: for the development version of package and any non-standard dependencies in README
[x] Vignette(s): demonstrating major functionality that runs successfully locally
[x] Function Documentation: for all exported functions
[x] Examples: (that run successfully locally) for all exported functions
[x] Community guidelines: including contribution guidelines in the README or CONTRIBUTING, and DESCRIPTION with URL, BugReports and Maintainer (which may be autogenerated via Authors@R).

Functionality

[x] Installation: Installation succeeds as documented.
[x] Functionality: Any functional claims of the software been confirmed.
[x] Performance: Any performance claims of the software been confirmed.
[x] Automated tests: Unit tests cover essential functions of the package and a reasonable range of inputs and conditions. All tests pass on the local machine.
[x] Packaging guidelines: The package conforms to the rOpenSci packaging guidelines.

Estimated hours spent reviewing: 1.5 hour

[x] Should the author(s) deem it appropriate, I agree to be acknowledged as a package reviewer ("rev" role) in the package DESCRIPTION file.

Review Comments

The idea of the package is intriguing. All functions work on my end. Good job!
It is nice to see that you are organizing your tasks using GitHub issues, projects, milestones, etc.
I did get a warning during installation as shown below. It would be better to get this handled.
```
Warning in install.packages :
package ‘slimreda’ is not available for this version of R
```

A version of this package for your version of R might be available elsewhere, see the ideas at https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-patched/R-admin.html#Installing-packages


- In code of conduct, there is a part `[INSERT CONTACT METHOD]` needed to be filled out.
- It would be better to include r code coverage badge as well in README.

Reviewer: Rakesh Pandey

Package Review

Please check off boxes as applicable, and elaborate in comments below. Your review is not limited to these topics, as described in the reviewer guide

Briefly describe any working relationship you have (had) with the package authors.
[x] As the reviewer I confirm that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work (if you are unsure whether you are in conflict, please speak to your editor before starting your review).

Documentation

The package includes all the following forms of documentation:

[x] A statement of need: clearly stating problems the software is designed to solve and its target audience in README
[x] Installation instructions: for the development version of package and any non-standard dependencies in README
[x] Vignette(s): demonstrating major functionality that runs successfully locally
[x] Function Documentation: for all exported functions
[x] Examples: (that run successfully locally) for all exported functions
[x] Community guidelines: including contribution guidelines in the README or CONTRIBUTING, and DESCRIPTION with URL, BugReports and Maintainer (which may be autogenerated via Authors@R).

Functionality

[x] Installation: Installation succeeds as documented.
[x] Functionality: Any functional claims of the software been confirmed.
[x] Performance: Any performance claims of the software been confirmed.
[x] Automated tests: Unit tests cover essential functions of the package and a reasonable range of inputs and conditions. All tests pass on the local machine.
[x] Packaging guidelines: The package conforms to the rOpenSci packaging guidelines.

Estimated hours spent reviewing: 1 hour

[x] Should the author(s) deem it appropriate, I agree to be acknowledged as a package reviewer ("rev" role) in the package DESCRIPTION file.

Review Comments

Excellent work, Team! Great package; I like the idea of making EDA as simple as possible.

The installation instructions for install_github are clear and easy to follow. It installs without any issue on Ubuntu and Debian.
Because the package is not available on CRAN, the installation instructions should not refer to CRAN.
A link to the contributing file in the README would be beneficial.
Only one developer's name appears in the README Licence section. Ideally, it should include all of the developers.
It would be helpful to include a badge for code coverage. It provides confidence in using an unknown package because it has been thoroughly tested.
In R/cat_unique_counts_script.R, libraries dplyr, purrr, and lubricate were manually imported. However, with R packages, this should be added as an overall dependency, and the function should be referred to with a package name like dplyr::select.

UBC-MDS / software-review-2022