Open morrismanfung opened 1 year ago
The package includes all the following forms of documentation:
pyproject.toml
file or elsewhere.Readme file requirements The package meets the readme requirements below:
The README should include, from top to bottom:
[x] The package name
[x] Badges for:
[x] Short description of package goals.
[x] Package installation instructions
[ ] Any additional setup required to use the package (authentication tokens, etc.)
[x] Descriptive links to all vignettes. If the package is small, there may only be a need for one vignette which could be placed in the README.md file.
[ ] Link to your documentation website.
[x] If applicable, how the package compares to other similar packages and/or how it relates to other packages in the scientific ecosystem.
[x] Citation information
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 whether:
Overall I enjoyed installing and playing around with your package and congrats. Great Job. There are minor fixes are suggested here:
src
folder. Please consider deleting it and moving the included files to the main src page.make file
needs to be updated with sphinx commands. The rest was amazing. Thanks.
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:
pyproject.toml
file or elsewhere.Readme file requirements The package meets the readme requirements below:
The README should include, from top to bottom:
NOTE: 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 a badge for pyOpenSci peer-review will be provided upon acceptance.)
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 whether:
Estimated hours spent reviewing: 2.5 hours
The package is to boost the overall efficiency when we perform EDA as part of the data analysis. It is really a great idea and valuable helper.
There are following specific suggestions:
(1) As per the instruction from ReadMe file and the pypi documentation website, I have successfully installed the package. However, it failed when importing the functions to my local Jupyter notebook. Therefore, the performance and functionality of the Python package have not been confirmed from my end. You may consider to double check from other users to see if there is a technical issue. (2) To benefit the users, especially some new data analysts, it is better to show some example plots on the Usage section of the ReadMe file. (3) The pypi documentation website is already available for the package. It would be convenient to indicate the link on the ReadMe file. (4) You can consider to add Python version support (for example Python >=3.9, <3.12) in the ReadMe file although it is visible on the documentation website. (5) You can consider to add current package version on PyPI in the ReadMe file.
The package includes all the following forms of documentation:
pyproject.toml
file or elsewhere.Readme file requirements The package meets the readme requirements below:
The README should include, from top to bottom:
NOTE: 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 a badge for pyOpenSci peer-review will be provided upon acceptance.)
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 whether:
Estimated hours spent reviewing: 1 hr
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:
pyproject.toml
file or elsewhere.Readme file requirements The package meets the readme requirements below:
The README should include, from top to bottom:
NOTE: 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 a badge for pyOpenSci peer-review will be provided upon acceptance.)
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 whether:
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
future warning
that is not comming from this package. It might be confusing for user to see other packages' warning.
Submitting Author: Morris Chan (@morrismanfung) All current maintainers: Mehwish (@MNBhat), Xinru Lu (@Lorraine97), Austin SHIH (@austin-shih) Package Name: prelim_eda_helper One-Line Description of Package: A preliminary exploratory data analysis tool to make useful feature EDA plots and provide relevant information to simplify an otherwise tedious EDA step of any data science project. Repository Link: https://github.com/UBC-MDS/prelim_eda_helper Version submitted: v0.1.8 Editor: Mehwish (@MNBhat) Xinru Lu (@Lorraine97) Austin SHIH (@austin-shih) Reviewer 1: Zilong Yi Reviewer 2: Peng Zhang Reviewer 3: Mohammad Reza Nabizadeh Shahrbabak Reviewer 4: Ziyi Chen Archive: TBD Version accepted: TBD Date accepted (month/day/year): TBD
Description
Scope
Technical checks
For details about the pyOpenSci packaging requirements, see our packaging guide Confirm each of the following by checking the box. This package:
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
Editor and Review Templates
The editor template can be found here. The review template can be found here.