Submission Group 26: featurecreator (R)

[SonQBChau]

---

name: featurecreator

about: R package for peer review

---

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

Package Name: featurescreator One-Line Description of Package: Helper functions to create new features for temporal data. Repository Link: https://github.com/UBC-MDS/featurescreator Version submitted: v1.1.0

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 Language: en

• Paste the full DESCRIPTION file inside a code block below:

Package: featurescreator
Title: New features for temporal data
Version: 1.1.0
Authors@R: 
    c(person("Rakesh", "Pandey", , "rakeshpandey@karunya.edu.in", role = c("aut", "cre")),
    person("Nikita", "Shymberg"),
    person("Son", "Chau"),
    person("Wenjia","Zhu"))
Description: Helper functions to create new features for temporal data.
License: MIT + file LICENSE
Encoding: UTF-8
Roxygen: list(markdown = TRUE)
RoxygenNote: 7.1.2
Suggests: 
    testthat (>= 3.0.0)
Config/testthat/edition: 3
Imports: 
    tidyr,
    tibble,
    readr,
    purrr,
    dplyr,
    stringr,
    forcats

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
  • [ ] 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):

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

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

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

• 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.
• [] 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

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

[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

• 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

General comments

• Great package , really like the idea of creating features on a combination of columns . Tested the package and it works fine .
• Good adequate amount of test cases written for the package.

Some notes and suggestions

• It would be easier to update or shorten the usage section of the README file with vignette link instead repeating all the usage code.
• Please include the author names in the License's and across the repository instead of mentioning DSCI_524_GROUP26.
• Reference link to the License in the README file can be added.
• Version number is 0.0.0.9000 in https://ubc-mds.github.io/featurescreator/ . Ideally I would prefer this to match to the version of the package.
• There is an empty file named features_creator.R in R/ .
• Not sure if this was intended but there is only a single author the citation goes to in https://ubc-mds.github.io/featurescreator/authors.html . Also I would prefer an Author tag to each of them instead of a . next to the name of the authors.
• 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

• 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

  General comments:

  • The functions were well written (defensively) and documented.
  • This is an interesting package with useful functions since extracting features for time-series data is an important task for any time-series analysis.

Notes and suggestions:

• It would better to show the authors' names and maybe an email that we can reach the authors for contribution instead of the group name. You've worked hard and it would be great to give yourselves more credits!
• The general introduction of the package was a little hard to comprehend since it gave out specific variable names, such as payment_week_1. I think it would be easier for us to understand if the feature is better explained.
• The functions names are long. It might be better to have more succinct names for better usability.
• This is a very minor issue, but the name reflected in the github repository and in the README do not agree with each other. The name in the README has an extra "_". It might cause confusion when people try to import the library.
• It looks like the dplyer package is a dependent package but called separately in the example. I assumed it was caused by the pipeline operator |>. My group had the same issue and it was hard to resolve. Keep me posted if you find out a way that does not require calling the package and the dplyer package at the same time.
• You might want to close the branches that were not useful any more at the end of the project.
• In the example, it might help people who do not know a lot about time-series data understand the concept better by displaying the initial data frame and providing a short explanation on what time-series data entails.

[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

• Briefly describe any working relationship you have (had) with the package authors.
  I previously worked on a group project with Wenjia Zhu and I am classmates 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: 1.25 hrs

• [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

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

1. I don't think the commented out "install.packages("devtools") needs to be included in installation instructions as you've listed the install command as devtools::install_github("UBC-MDS/featurescreator").
2. In the Installation section of README, it says "You can install the development version of regexcite from GitHub". Please update from regexcite to the correct package name.
3. README references contributing guidelines, but there is only a Code of Conduct in the repo.
4. The authors' names should be listed in the License and README, instead of DSCI_524_GROUP26.
5. The function names are long. Perhaps drop "calculate" from them to shorten them up a bit?