UBC-MDS / software-review-2023

DSCI 524
0 stars 0 forks source link

Group 13 - mercedestrenz #26

Open spencergerlach opened 1 year ago

spencergerlach commented 1 year ago

Submitting Author: Spencer Gerlach (@spencergerlach) All current maintainers: (@tieandrews, @kellywujy, @mozhao0331) Package Name: mercedestrenz One-Line Description of Package: Explores Mercedes-Benz used vehicle prices and predicts prices based on vehicle attributes. Repository Link: https://github.com/UBC-MDS/mercedestrenz Version submitted: v1.0.0 Editor: Ty Andrews, Spencer Gerlach, Kelly Wu, Morris Zhao Reviewer 1: Eyre Hong Reviewer 2: Dhruvi Nishar Reviewer 3: Caroline Tang Reviewer 4: Jonah Hamilton Archive: TBD
Version accepted: TBD Date accepted (month/day/year): TBD


Description

Scope

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

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

Please fill out our survey

P.S. *Have feedback/comments about our review process? Leave a comment here

Editor and Review Templates

The editor template can be found here.

The review template can be found here.

eyrexh commented 1 year ago

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

Documentation

The package includes all the following forms of documentation:

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.)

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 whether:

Functionality

For packages also submitting to JOSS

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:

Final approval (post-review)

Estimated hours spent reviewing: 1 hr

Review Comments

  1. The project is overall well designed with a function that stores all the datasets to save time. The functions themselves are well organized and easy to apply. Also, it is great to include the input value error controlling. Well done!
  2. However, I do suggest the workflow should be mentioned in the README and Example Usage files for people to have a clear idea that listing_search () and plot_mercedes_price() require the load_sample_mercedes_listings() to run first.
  3. The README file has a different usage section than the Example Usage file with some incorrect lines: from mercedestrenz.modelling import train_mercedes_price_prediction_model No mercedestrenz.modelling module can be found. The Example Usage file is correct with from mercedestrenz.train import train_mercedes_price_prediction_model. This might misguide people to using the package so highly recommend fixing it.
  4. The Example Usage file only contains 3 functions and does not have the function predict_mercedes_price(). I highly recommend adding it inside.
  5. The code coverage is 88% and the reason is the helper function export_mercedes_price_model in the train.py and test.py haven't been tested. I understand it will be hard to test the joblib model files. However, some other lines like
    if type(version) is not str:
    --
    78 | raise TypeError("version must be a string of form 'vX'")

    in predict_mercedes_price might be a good idea to cover in the test since it only checks the input is a string type.

Overall it is a well-done project just the formatting and workflow might need further improvement. Great jobs!

xXJohamXx commented 1 year ago

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

Documentation

The package includes all the following forms of documentation:

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.)

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 whether:

Functionality

For packages also submitting to JOSS

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:

Final approval (post-review)

Estimated hours spent reviewing: 1.5


Review Comments

Great work team! Your package works as expected and as you mentioned it is unique in its function!

dhruvinishar commented 1 year ago

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

Documentation

The package includes all the following forms of documentation:

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.)

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 whether:

Functionality

For packages also submitting to JOSS

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:

Final approval (post-review)

Estimated hours spent reviewing:

--- 1 hr

Review Comments

Screenshot 2023-02-04 at 12 14 55 PM
carolinetang77 commented 1 year ago

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

Documentation

The package includes all the following forms of documentation:

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.)

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 whether:

Functionality

For packages also submitting to JOSS

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:

Final approval (post-review)

Estimated hours spent reviewing: 1


Review Comments