Submission Group 26: feature_creator (Python)

[SonQBChau]

---

name: feature_creator about: Python package for peer review

Submitting Author: Son Chau @SonQBChau Nikita Shymberg @NikitaShymberg Rakesh Pandey @veerupandey Wenjia Zhu @PANDASANG1231

Package Name: features_creator One-Line Description of Package: Helper functions to create new features for temporal data. Repository Link: https://github.com/UBC-MDS/features_creator Version submitted: v1.1.3

Editors: Son Chau @SonQBChau Nikita Shymberg @NikitaShymberg Rakesh Pandey @veerupandey Wenjia Zhu @PANDASANG1231

Reviewers: Amelia Tang @aimee0317 Allyson Stoll Christopher Alexander @christopheralex

Archive: TBD
Version accepted: TBD

---

Description

This package aims to speed up and simplify the process of feature engineering for temporal (e.g. weekly or monthly) data. It works with dataframes that have columns whose names follow a pattern and end with a number. For example payment_week_1, payment_week_2, ... For such datasets, commonly engineered features include, among others, the percentage change across time periods, the average across time periods, and the standard deviation across time periods.

Scope

• Please indicate which category or categories this package falls under:
  • [ ] Data retrieval
  • [ ] Data extraction
  • [x] Data munging
  • [ ] Data deposition
  • [ ] Reproducibility
  • [ ] Geospatial
  • [ ] Education
  • [ ] Data visualization*

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

• Explain how the 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?

• If you made a pre-submission enquiry, please paste the link to the corresponding issue, forum post, or other discussion, or @tag the editor you contacted:

Technical checks

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

• [x] does not violate the Terms of Service of any service it interacts with.
• [x] has an OSI approved license.
• [x] contains a README with instructions for installing the development version.
• [x] includes documentation with examples for all functions.
• [x] contains a vignette with examples of its essential functions and uses.
• [x] has a test suite.
• [x] has continuous integration, such as Travis CI, AppVeyor, CircleCI, and/or others.

Publication options

• [ ] Do you wish to automatically submit to the Journal of Open Source Software? If so:

JOSS Checks

- [ ] The package has an **obvious research application** according to JOSS's definition in their [submission requirements][JossSubmissionRequirements]. 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][JossSubmissionRequirements]: "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][JossPaperRequirements] 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*

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.

• [x] Yes I am OK with reviewers submitting requested changes as issues to my repo. Reviewers will then link to the issues in their submitted review.

Code of conduct

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

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

[christopheralex]

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

• [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
• [ ] Vignette(s) demonstrating major functionality that runs successfully locally
• [x] Function Documentation: for all user-facing functions
• [x] Examples for all user-facing functions
• [x] Community guidelines including contribution guidelines in the README or CONTRIBUTING.
• [ ] Metadata including author(s), author e-mail(s), a url, and any other relevant metadata e.g., in a setup.py file or elsewhere.

Readme requirements The package meets the readme requirements below:

• [x] Package has a README.md file in the root directory.

The README should include, from top to bottom:

• [x] The package name
• [x] Badges for continuous integration and test coverage, a repostatus.org badge, and any other badges. If the README has many more badges, you might want to consider using a table for badges: see this example. Such a table should be more wide than high. (Note that the badge for pyOpenSci peer-review will be provided upon acceptance.)
• [ ] Short description of goals of package, with descriptive links to all vignettes (rendered, i.e. readable, cf the documentation website section) unless the package is small and there’s only one vignette repeating the README.
• [x] Installation instructions
• [x] Any additional setup required (authentication tokens, etc)
• [x] Brief demonstration usage
• [ ] Direction to more detailed documentation (e.g. your documentation files or website).
• [x] If applicable, how the package compares to other similar packages and/or how it relates to other packages
• [x] Citation information

Usability

Reviewers are encouraged to submit suggestions (or pull requests) that will improve the usability of the package as a whole. Package structure should follow general community best-practices. In general please consider:

• [x] The documentation is easy to find and understand
• [x] The need for the package is clear
• [x] All functions have documentation and associated examples for use

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: Tests cover essential functions of the package and a reasonable range of inputs and conditions. All tests pass on the local machine.
• [x] Continuous Integration: Has continuous integration, such as Travis CI, AppVeyor, CircleCI, and/or others.
• [x] Packaging guidelines: The package conforms to the pyOpenSci packaging guidelines.

For packages co-submitting to JOSS

• [ ] The package has an obvious research application according to JOSS's definition in their submission requirements.

Note: Be sure to check this carefully, as JOSS's submission requirements and scope differ from pyOpenSci's in terms of what types of packages are accepted.

The package contains a paper.md matching JOSS's requirements with:

• [ ] A short summary describing the high-level functionality of the software
• [ ] Authors: A list of authors with their affiliations
• [ ] A statement of need clearly stating problems the software is designed to solve and its target audience.
• [ ] References: with DOIs for all those that have one (e.g. papers, datasets, software).

Final approval (post-review)

• [ ] The author has responded to my review and made changes to my satisfaction. I recommend approving this package.

Estimated hours spent reviewing: 1 hour

---

Review Comments

General comments

• Great package , really like the idea of creating features on a combination of columns . Was able to clone the repo and all tests passed in my system.
• Good adequate amount of test cases written for the package.

Some notes and suggestions

• It would be easier to update the README file with ReadTheDocs documentation link instead of typing out all the code in the usage section.
• Please include the author names in the License's across the repository instead of mentioning DSCI_524_GROUP26.
• Reference link to the License in the README file can be added.
• Could be a minor suggestion but docstring's could be standarised to be in the same format across the package . For ex. Either all functions in features_creator.py can have the same docstring as calculate_percentage_change() function or docstring of calculate_percentage_change() could be shortened and made similar to other functions.
• Just a thought , why should the column names just be in a specific format ? As a future suggestion you could modify the function to accept data with different column names or a function to rename columns and still do the functionalities.

[aimee0317]

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_

• [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

• [ ] Vignette(s) demonstrating major functionality that runs successfully locally

• [x] Function Documentation: for all user-facing functions

• [x] Examples for all user-facing functions

• [x] Community guidelines including contribution guidelines in the README or CONTRIBUTING.

• [ ] Metadata including author(s), author e-mail(s), a url, and any other relevant metadata e.g., in a setup.py file or elsewhere.

  Readme requirements The package meets the readme requirements below:

• [x] Package has a README.md file in the root directory.

  The README should include, from top to bottom:

• [x] The package name

• [x] Badges for continuous integration and test coverage, a repostatus.org badge, and any other badges. If the README has many more badges, you might want to consider using a table for badges: see this example. Such a table should be more wide than high. (Note that the badge for pyOpenSci peer-review will be provided upon acceptance.)

• [x] Short description of goals of package, with descriptive links to all vignettes (rendered, i.e. readable, cf the documentation website section) unless the package is small and there’s only one vignette repeating the README.

• [x] Installation instructions

• [x] Any additional setup required (authentication tokens, etc)

• [x] Brief demonstration usage

• [ ] Direction to more detailed documentation (e.g. your documentation files or website).

• [x] If applicable, how the package compares to other similar packages and/or how it relates to other packages

• [x] Citation information

  Usability

  Reviewers are encouraged to submit suggestions (or pull requests) that will improve the usability of the package as a whole. Package structure should follow general community best-practices. In general please consider:

• [x] The documentation is easy to find and understand

• [x] The need for the package is clear

• [x] All functions have documentation and associated examples for use

  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: Tests cover essential functions of the package and a reasonable range of inputs and conditions. All tests pass on the local machine.

• [x] Continuous Integration: Has continuous integration, such as Travis CI, AppVeyor, CircleCI, and/or others.

• [x] Packaging guidelines: The package conforms to the pyOpenSci packaging guidelines.

  For packages co-submitting to JOSS

• [ ] The package has an obvious research application according to JOSS's definition in their submission requirements.

  Note:_ Be sure to check this carefully, as JOSS's submission requirements and scope differ from pyOpenSci's in terms of what types of packages are accepted.

  The package contains a paper.md matching JOSS's requirements with:

• [ ] A short summary describing the high-level functionality of the software

• [ ] Authors: A list of authors with their affiliations

• [ ] A statement of need clearly stating problems the software is designed to solve and its target audience.

• [ ] References: with DOIs for all those that have one (e.g. papers, datasets, software).

  Final approval (post-review)

• [ ] The author has responded to my review and made changes to my satisfaction. I recommend approving this package.

  Estimated hours spent reviewing: 1 hour 10 minutes

  Review Comments

  General comments

• It is a useful package with practical functionality for time-series data analysis.

• All the functions were written defensively and well documented.

  Notes and suggestions

• It would be better to include the readthedocs link in the github repo for better overview of the package.

• You might want to close the branches that would not be useful any more at the end of the projects.

• Although descriptive, the functions might be a bit too long. I think shorter names may increase usability.

• Regarding how this package fits into the ecosystem as well as the usage section, it might be better to display the initial data set in a table format to facilitate understanding better.

• You might want to close the issues that have been resolved at the end of the project.

• Due to the README file display, the output in the usage section looks a bit strange with numbers not confined within the respective columns.

[datallurgy]

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

• [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
• [ ] Vignette(s) demonstrating major functionality that runs successfully locally
• [X] Function Documentation: for all user-facing functions
• [X] Examples for all user-facing functions
• [X] Community guidelines including contribution guidelines in the README or CONTRIBUTING.
• [ ] Metadata including author(s), author e-mail(s), a url, and any other relevant metadata e.g., in a setup.py file or elsewhere.

Readme requirements The package meets the readme requirements below:

• [X] Package has a README.md file in the root directory.

The README should include, from top to bottom:

• [X] The package name
• [X] Badges for continuous integration and test coverage, a repostatus.org badge, and any other badges. If the README has many more badges, you might want to consider using a table for badges: see this example. Such a table should be more wide than high. (Note that the badge for pyOpenSci peer-review will be provided upon acceptance.)
• [X] Short description of goals of package, with descriptive links to all vignettes (rendered, i.e. readable, cf the documentation website section) unless the package is small and there’s only one vignette repeating the README.
• [X] Installation instructions
• [ ] Any additional setup required (authentication tokens, etc)
• [X] Brief demonstration usage
• [ ] Direction to more detailed documentation (e.g. your documentation files or website).
• [X] If applicable, how the package compares to other similar packages and/or how it relates to other packages
• [X] Citation information

Usability

Reviewers are encouraged to submit suggestions (or pull requests) that will improve the usability of the package as a whole. Package structure should follow general community best-practices. In general please consider:

• [X] The documentation is easy to find and understand
• [X] The need for the package is clear
• [X] All functions have documentation and associated examples for use

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: Tests cover essential functions of the package and a reasonable range of inputs and conditions. All tests pass on the local machine.
• [X] Continuous Integration: Has continuous integration, such as Travis CI, AppVeyor, CircleCI, and/or others.
• [ ] Packaging guidelines: The package conforms to the pyOpenSci packaging guidelines.

For packages co-submitting to JOSS

• [ ] The package has an obvious research application according to JOSS's definition in their submission requirements.

Note: Be sure to check this carefully, as JOSS's submission requirements and scope differ from pyOpenSci's in terms of what types of packages are accepted.

The package contains a paper.md matching JOSS's requirements with:

• [ ] A short summary describing the high-level functionality of the software
• [ ] Authors: A list of authors with their affiliations
• [ ] A statement of need clearly stating problems the software is designed to solve and its target audience.
• [ ] References: with DOIs for all those that have one (e.g. papers, datasets, software).

Final approval (post-review)

• [ ] The author has responded to my review and made changes to my satisfaction. I recommend approving this package.

Estimated hours spent reviewing: 1.5 hrs

---

Review Comments

I agree with the comments listed above. Here are my additional comments to be considered:

1. I noticed on install that Sphinx was included as a package dependency (not just a dev dependency). This isn't necessary. Please remove it.
2. LICENSE, CONTRIBUTING and CONDUCT should be linked in the README if possible.
3. Nice use of Projects. It's great to see so many linked PRs to completed tasks.
4. The function names are long. Perhaps drop "calculate" from them to shorten them up?
5. Please include the ReadTheDocs link in the README or as the repo link in the upper right hand corner.