Group 12 - bmigraph (Python)

Submitting Author: Name (@qurat-azim) All current maintainers: (@qurat-azim, @Natalie-cho, @hcwang24, @netsgnut) Package Name: bmigraph One-Line Description of Package: Computes and visually presents weight loss goals Repository Link: https://github.com/UBC-MDS/bmi-calculator-python Version submitted: v1.4.0 Editor: Qurat-ul-Ain Azim, Natalie Cho, HanChen Wang, Kelvin Wong Reviewer 1: Sam Li Reviewer 2: Ceasar Wong Reviewer 3: Mike Guron Reviewer 4: Gaoxiang Wang Archive: TBD
Version accepted: TBD Date accepted (month/day/year): TBD

Description

This python package is for calculation of BMI (body mass index), and some more computations based on weight loss goals. The package provides simple answers to a user's weight loss goals in terms of how much weight loss/gain and calorie deficit/increase should be aimed for with a target weight and time frame in mind. The package also provides helpful visualizations about BMI and calorie intake change trajectory leading to the target.

Scope

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

For all submissions, explain how the and why the package falls under the categories you indicated above. In your explanation, please address the following points (briefly, 1-2 sentences for each):
- Who is the target audience and what are scientific applications of this package?
  - The target audience is any user who wants to educate themselves about health indicators like body mass index (BMI), and prefer a visual aid for understanding their weight loss goals as well.
- Are there other Python packages that accomplish the same thing? If so, how does yours differ?
  - The package does not rely on any historical data of a person's weights, and hence needs no dataset files to be provided. The only arguments needed for the functions of this calculator are current weight and height, and target weight with timeframe in case weight change is desired. It also recommends simple figures for weight gain/loss goals. There are many BMI calculators in the Python ecosystem. Some of the examples can be found here and here. Both these offer limited visual aid in understanding one's health metrics and targets related to BMI.
- 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:
  - N/A

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

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.

Please fill out our survey

[ ] Last but not least please fill out our pre-review survey. This helps us track submission and improve our peer review process. We will also ask our reviewers and editors to fill this out.

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

Editor and Review Templates

The editor template can be found here.

The review template 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 the 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 pyproject.toml file or elsewhere.

Readme file 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:
- [X] Continuous integration and test coverage,
- [X] Docs building (if you have a documentation website),
- [ ] A repostatus.org badge,
- [ ] Python versions supported,
- [ ] Current package version (on PyPI / Conda).

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.)

[X] Short description of package goals.
[X] Package installation instructions
[X] 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.
- [X] Brief demonstration of package usage (as it makes sense - links to vignettes could also suffice here if package description is clear)
[X] 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.
[ ] 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 whether:

[X] Package documentation is clear and easy to find and use.
[X] The need for the package is clear
[X] All functions have documentation and associated examples for use
[X] The package is easy to install

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.
[ ] 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 setup (We suggest using Github actions but any CI platform is acceptable for review)
[X] Packaging guidelines: The package conforms to the pyOpenSci packaging guidelines. A few notable highlights to look at:
- [X] Package supports modern versions of Python and not End of life versions.
- [X] Code format is standard throughout package and follows PEP 8 guidelines (CI tests for linting pass)

For packages also 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:

40 mins

Review Comments

I would like to extend my sincere congratulations on the successful creation of your captivating package. The level of development and user-friendly features are truly impressive. I would like to offer some recommendations or comments for your consideration:

I encountered an issue where the graphs were not rendering correctly in Jupyter Lab, but they were functioning properly in Visual Studio Code. It is possible that additional packages are needed to successfully display the graphs in Jupyter Lab.
I appreciate the organization of the release versions and changelog.
It might be beneficial to include a clear link of doc in the README for reference.
For similar packages listed in the README, using their specific package names instead of "here" could make the information more easily understandable.
It might be a good idea to add https://www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist4.htm as a reference for exercise_plan in the README for added clarity.

Great job! It is a pleasure reviewing your package.

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 the 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 pyproject.toml file or elsewhere.

Readme file 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
[x] Badges for:
- [x] Continuous integration and test coverage,
- [x] Docs building (if you have a documentation website),
- [ ] A repostatus.org badge,
- [ ] Python versions supported,
- [ ] Current package version (on PyPI / Conda).

[x] Short description of package goals.
[x] Package installation instructions
[x] 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.
- [x] Brief demonstration of package usage (as it makes sense - links to vignettes could also suffice here if package description is clear)
[x] 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

Usability

[x] Package documentation is clear and easy to find and use.
[x] The need for the package is clear
[x] All functions have documentation and associated examples for use
[x] The package is easy to install

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 setup (We suggest using Github actions but any CI platform is acceptable for review)
[x] Packaging guidelines: The package conforms to the pyOpenSci packaging guidelines. A few notable highlights to look at:
- [x] Package supports modern versions of Python and not End of life versions.
- [x] Code format is standard throughout package and follows PEP 8 guidelines (CI tests for linting pass)

For packages also 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

First of all, I really appreciate the symmetric coding structure/style between both Python & R version of this package. All the functionalities are equivalent.
Nice to have some of the badges A repostatus.org badge, Python versions supported, and Current package version (on PyPI / Conda).
Great job achieving 100% code coverage, I was struggling with my project for getting a high codecov.
I really like the naming convention of your branches (e.g. feat/, build/), very clear and people easily know the purpose of that branch in development.
Excellent work practice by making use of all features in an issue (e.g. Labels, Milestone, Status), and even with a meaningful issue naming format (e.g. [M1], [M2], etc.).
I love seeing this team following various practices while collaborating on GitHub.

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 the 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 pyproject.toml file or elsewhere.

Readme file 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:
- [x] Continuous integration and test coverage,
- [x] Docs building (if you have a documentation website),
- [ ] A repostatus.org badge,
- [ ] Python versions supported,
- [ ] Current package version (on PyPI / Conda).

[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.
- [x] Brief demonstration of package usage (as it makes sense - links to vignettes could also suffice here if package description is clear)
[x] 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

Usability

[x] Package documentation is clear and easy to find and use.
[x] The need for the package is clear
[x] All functions have documentation and associated examples for use
[x] The package is easy to install

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 setup (We suggest using Github actions but any CI platform is acceptable for review)
[x] Packaging guidelines: The package conforms to the pyOpenSci packaging guidelines. A few notable highlights to look at:
- [x] Package supports modern versions of Python and not End of life versions.
- [x] Code format is standard throughout package and follows PEP 8 guidelines (CI tests for linting pass)

For packages also 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: 1hr

Review Comments

I like the idea of this package very much. It basically provides all of the functions related to the usage of fitness control in our daily life.
Have a very clear overview of the work distribution among teammates in the Project Spreadsheet and issues along with clear labels from Milestone 1 to Milestone 4.
Provide intuitive weight loss workout plans through simple but clever mathematical calculations and multiple options.
Good data visualization, a clear reflection of the health level interval of BMI, projected BMI trajectory, and projected weight loss."
I suggest only retaining a certain number of decimal places when displaying numbers, which makes the results more intuitive. Also, the meaning of the pink arrow under the BMI index in the calculate_bmi with return_graph=True image is a bit ambiguous. If there is some explanation in the README file, it will be more perfect."

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 the 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 pyproject.toml file or elsewhere.

Readme file 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:
- [x] Continuous integration and test coverage,
- [x] Docs building (if you have a documentation website),
- [ ] A repostatus.org badge,
- [ ] Python versions supported,
- [ ] Current package version (on PyPI / Conda).

[x] Short description of package goals.
[x] Package installation instructions
[x] 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.
- [x] Brief demonstration of package usage (as it makes sense - links to vignettes could also suffice here if package description is clear)
[x] 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.
[ ] Citation information

Usability

[x] Package documentation is clear and easy to find and use.
[x] The need for the package is clear
[x] All functions have documentation and associated examples for use
[x] The package is easy to install

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 setup (We suggest using Github actions but any CI platform is acceptable for review)
[x] Packaging guidelines: The package conforms to the pyOpenSci packaging guidelines. A few notable highlights to look at:
- [x] Package supports modern versions of Python and not End of life versions.
- [x] Code format is standard throughout package and follows PEP 8 guidelines (CI tests for linting pass)

For packages also 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

I'll start off by saying congratulations on completing this project and it was a pleasure to review your bmi.calculator package. Below I've listed some comments about aspects I believe were done very well and some areas for improvement:

The README file was well written, information, and easy to follow. I also liked that you included links to various other documents in the repository for easy access. Also, much better cropping of the figures here compared to the ones in the R version of your package
Overall, the repository is very well organized and "clean"; however, I would suggest deleting some of the merged branches if they are no longer necessary just to clean things up a bit more
The package itself is very easy to use (especially when provided with the very detailed instructions in the README and documentation) and it also serves a useful purpose
Good job on the testing of all of your functions as it was thorough and well thought out. Many tests were included for each function that covered a wide range of scenarios
More of a nitpick, but it appears that the Example Usage on Readthedocs is just a copy of the README example. Perhaps it would be better to include a different example in the Example Usage and provide more of a dialogue taking a user through the usage of the package with more explicit instructions provided

Overall, great work on the development of your package! Keep it up!

UBC-MDS / software-review-2023