Open sy25wang opened 2 years ago
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
The package includes all the following forms of documentation:
setup.py
file or elsewhere.Readme requirements The package meets the readme requirements below:
The README should include, from top to bottom:
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:
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:
Estimated hours spent reviewing: 1.5 hours
Well done, Group 17, on an interesting and concise package! As you stated, its simplicity makes it relevant for an audience looking to perform quick computation and analysis based on stocks they may be tracking. Below are some recommendations and suggestions that point to possible minor improvements that could facilitate its usage and interpretability:
profit_viz()
function locally. Running profit_viz('AAPL', '2015-01-01', '2021-12-31', 'SP500')
returns the following: profit_viz('AAPL', '2015-01-01', '2021-12-31', 'SP500'). You have entered an invalid benchmark ticker! Try again.
(I have set up a new conda environment to test this). This is the reason why I have not ticked the functionality
box above. volume_viz()
contains useful summary information, but it is a little difficult to interpret at first glance. As a suggestion, perhaps it may be preferable to present this information in the form of a line plot rather than a bar plot.volume_viz()
and profit_viz()
could help make the aesthetics of the package more consistent. In addition, adding a title and axis labels to the plots generated could help users export these plots while retaining all relevant underlying context information. I can definitely see how a simple package like this can be quite valuable to a finance professional with minimal programming knowledge for quickly generating insight from time-sensitive data. Note that of these comments pertain to rather minor potential improvements - this package is otherwise well-structured package. Great work!
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
The package includes all the following forms of documentation:
setup.py
file or elsewhere.Readme requirements The package meets the readme requirements below:
The README should include, from top to bottom:
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:
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:
Estimated hours spent reviewing:
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
The package includes all the following forms of documentation:
setup.py
file or elsewhere.Readme requirements The package meets the readme requirements below:
The README should include, from top to bottom:
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:
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:
Estimated hours spent reviewing: 1 hours
Guys, I really like your package as I would identify myself as one of your potential users. There are some things you might take into consideration in the future:
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
The package includes all the following forms of documentation:
setup.py
file or elsewhere.Readme requirements The package meets the readme requirements below:
The README should include, from top to bottom:
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:
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:
Estimated hours spent reviewing: 1 hour
Anyway, it is a fantastic project considering there are only four functions here. Really nice work guys.
Submitting Author: Affrin Sultana @Affrin101 Pavel Levchenko @plevchen Helin Wang @helingogo Shi Yan Wang @sy25wang
Package Name: pystockwatch One-Line Description of Package: Simple interface for checking stock price and volume change Repository Link: https://github.com/UBC-MDS/pystockwatch Version submitted: v2.0.0
Editors: Affrin Sultana @Affrin101 Pavel Levchenko @plevchen Helin Wang @helingogo Shi Yan Wang @sy25wang
Reviewers: Jiwei Hu @hjw0703 Rowan Sivanandam @Rowansiv Vadim Taskaev @vtaskaev1 Wenjia Zhu @PANDASANG1231
Archive: TBD
Version accepted: TBD
Description
SP500
orNASDAQ
Scope
* 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?
Technical checks
For details about the pyOpenSci packaging requirements, see our packaging guide. Confirm each of the following by checking the box. This package:
Publication options
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.
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