Submission group 18: collinearity_tool (Python)

Submitting Author: Name (@github_handle)
Package Name: collinearity_tool One-Line Description of Package: Easy code to detect collinearity issues Repository Link: https://github.com/UBC-MDS/collinearity_tool Version submitted: 1.1.0 Editor: TBD
Reviewer 1: Francis Victor @Vikiano Reviewer 2: TZ Yan @ytz,
Reviewer 3: Karanpreet Kaur @karanpreetkaur
Archive: TBD
Version accepted: TBD

Description

Include a brief paragraph describing what your package does:

This package automates the process of data cleaning and melting and generates heatmap and VIF bar plot.

Scope

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

The package generates correlation heatmap and VIF bar plot used to identify and eliminate highly correlated variables.
Who is the target audience and what are scientific applications of this package?

Beginners who know statistics but have no or little experience in Python.
Are there other Python packages that accomplish the same thing? If so, how does yours differ? No
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

[x] 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

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
[X] 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.
[X] 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
[ ] 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
[X] 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: 1.5 hours

Review Comments

I think that this is a great package and the work you have put in is highly commendable. If this package was available during DSCI 571 and 573, it would have eased a lot of collinearity checks for me. Well-done team!
I was able to follow the installation instructions successfully. I used $ pip install collinearity_tool and I got the package installed without any issue. If it counts, I'm using a Mac machine.
I think that you can make do with some badges as instructed. A codecov badge and a ci-cd badge will go a long way in adding more appeal to your package's repository.
In the README, the sentence "An R version of package is also in the progress of development" is probably no longer valid, since you now have a full build of same package in R. I will suggest you link the R package's repository here instead.
Overall, this is a great and very useful package. I particularly like your function names and the clear documentation of your functions. I can't wait to use your package in any future project that has to do with checking collinearity!

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
[x] 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.
[x] 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
[ ] 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

[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 hr

Review Comments

Since you already have a readthedocs page, I think it will be great to showcase it from your README.md. Perhaps a badge like using [![Documentation Status](https://readthedocs.org/projects/collinearity-tool/badge/?version=latest)](https://collinearity-tool.readthedocs.io/en/latest/?badge=latest)
The functions are interesting and useful for data science work. I'm more of a visual person, and I find that showing examples of output from the functions in README.md will help me understand what each function offers
The example usage is clear and well-written. Visualization is clean and aesthetically pleasing
I think it is cool that your corr_heatmap allows customization through the scheme parameter. 👍 for customization!
For col_identitfy in collinearity_tool.py, there is a missing newline on line 170, which is causing the doc to render incorrectly

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.
[X] 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
[ ] 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).
[ ] If applicable, how the package compares to other similar packages and/or how it relates to other packages
[X] Citation information

Usability

[ ] 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

In README, you have included the dependencies of your package in the package ecosystem section. I think it would be good to have separate section for Motivation/Our place in Python ecosystem section and Dependencies.
You docstrings are great, however the functions could probably use a few more comments to increase readability. Not a big issue but would be nicer to read to fully understand what's going on.
For function vif_bar_plot, do you feel to have a default threshold value. Looking at beginner's perspective, many times people use functions without knowing purpose of threshold and having a default threshold could set a context and gives them opportunity to play with it according to their need.
Badges for ci-cd, code cov and documentation to reflect the status of your workflows and code coverage. Also, your code coverage (78.8%) could be improved as you are missing 18 lines.
I felt hard to find your package's documentation link and could only check example.ipynb but the bar chart was not rendered properly in it. Highly recommend adding documentation link in your README or documentation badge
In Usage, you can edit package name to collinearity_tool instead of collinearity as it could confuse readers.

Overall, this is a useful package and I enjoyed reviewing it. 👍

UBC-MDS / software-review-2022