Group 19 - compassistr (R)

name: compassistr about: A set of tools to help compute task time and probabilities for video game completionist tasks.

Submitting Author Name: Samson Bakos, Marian Agyby, Waiel Tinwala, Ashwin Babu Submitting Author Github Handle: @samson-bakos, @marianagyby, @WaielonH, @ashwin2507 Repository: https://github.com/UBC-MDS/compassistr Version submitted: v1.0.0 Submission type: Standard Editor: TBD Reviewers: Raul Lopez, Rus Dimitrov, Eric Tsai, Revanthy Ponnambalam Archive: TBD Version accepted: TBD Language: English

Paste the full DESCRIPTION file inside a code block below:

Package: compassistr
Title: A completionist assistant tool
Version: 0.0.0.9000
Authors@R: 
    c(person("Samson", "Bakos", , "samsonbakos@hotmail.com", role = c("aut", "cre")),
      person("Waiel", "Tinwala", , "waielonh@gmail.com", role = c("aut")),
      person("Marian", "Agyby", , "marian.agyby@yahoo.com", role = c("aut")),
      person("Ashwin", "Babu", , "bashwin27@gmail.com", role = c("aut")))
Description: A set of tools to help compute task time/ probabilities for video game completionist tasks.
License: MIT + file LICENSE
Encoding: UTF-8
Roxygen: list(markdown = TRUE)
RoxygenNote: 7.2.2
Suggests: 
    testthat (>= 3.0.0)
Config/testthat/edition: 3
Imports: 
    dplyr,
    tibble,
    tidyverse,
    ggplot2,
    ggthemes,
    combinat

Scope

Please indicate which category or categories from our package fit policies this package falls under: (Please check an appropriate box below. If you are unsure, we suggest you make a pre-submission inquiry.):
- [ ] data retrieval
- [ ] data extraction
- [ ] data munging
- [ ] data deposition
  - [ ] data validation and testing
- [ ] workflow automation
- [ ] version control
- [ ] citation management and bibliometrics
- [ ] scientific software wrappers
- [x] field and lab reproducibility tools
- [ ] database software bindings
- [ ] geospatial data
- [ ] text analysis
- [x] other
Explain how and why the package falls under these categories (briefly, 1-2 sentences):

Reproducibility: This package and its code is fully open source. Other: The package mainly does statistical computations. The package could be used as an educational tool for solving statistical probability problems.

Who is the target audience and what are scientific applications of this package?

The target audience includes anyone who plays video games and would like to compute the time and/or probability to complete a task, or anyone who is interested in examples of statistical probability problems.

Are there other R packages that accomplish the same thing? If so, how does yours differ or meet our criteria for best-in-category?

The unique application of this package is to provide a centralized location for multiple different tools, to simplify calculation for users with less statistical understanding and tailor outputs to specific video game applications, as well as to provide additional helpful functionalities such as visualizations and rankings.

(If applicable) Does your package comply with our guidance around Ethics, Data Privacy and Human Subjects Research?
If you made a pre-submission inquiry, please paste the link to the corresponding issue, forum post, or other discussion, or @tag the editor you contacted.
Explain reasons for any pkgcheck items which your package is unable to pass.

Technical checks

Confirm each of the following by checking the box.

[x] I have read the rOpenSci packaging guide.
[x] I have read the author guide and I expect to maintain this package for at least 2 years or to find a replacement.

This package:

[x] does not violate the Terms of Service of any service it interacts with.
[x] has a CRAN and OSI accepted license.
[x] contains a README with instructions for installing the development version.
[x] includes documentation with examples for all functions, created with roxygen2.
[x] contains a vignette with examples of its essential functions and uses.
[x] has a test suite.
[x] has continuous integration, including reporting of test coverage.

Publication options

[ ] Do you intend for this package to go on CRAN?
[ ] Do you intend for this package to go on Bioconductor?
[ ] Do you wish to submit an Applications Article about your package to Methods in Ecology and Evolution? If so:

MEE Options

- [ ] The package is novel and will be of interest to the broad readership of the journal. - [ ] The manuscript describing the package is no longer than 3000 words. - [ ] You intend to archive the code for the package in a long-term repository which meets the requirements of the journal (see [MEE's Policy on Publishing Code](http://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/hub/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)2041-210X/journal-resources/policy-on-publishing-code.html)) - (*Scope: Do consider MEE's [Aims and Scope](http://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/hub/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)2041-210X/aims-and-scope/read-full-aims-and-scope.html) for your manuscript. We make no guarantee that your manuscript will be within MEE scope.*) - (*Although not required, we strongly recommend having a full manuscript prepared when you submit here.*) - (*Please do not submit your package separately to Methods in Ecology and Evolution*)

Code of conduct

[x] I agree to abide by rOpenSci's Code of Conduct during the review process and in maintaining my package should it be accepted.

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

Briefly describe any working relationship you have (had) with the package authors.
[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 exported functions
[x] Examples: (that run successfully locally) for all exported functions
[ ] Community guidelines: including contribution guidelines in the README or CONTRIBUTING, and DESCRIPTION with URL, BugReports and Maintainer (which may be autogenerated via Authors@R).

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: Unit tests cover essential functions of the package and a reasonable range of inputs and conditions. All tests pass on the local machine.
[x] Packaging guidelines: The package conforms to the rOpenSci packaging guidelines.

Estimated hours spent reviewing: 1 hour

[x] Should the author(s) deem it appropriate, I agree to be acknowledged as a package reviewer ("rev" role) in the package DESCRIPTION file.

Review Comments

The vignette contains a lot of detail and is very well written.
It would be more interesting if you could find and list similar packages in the R ecosystem.
Although you guys have a license file, I think it should also be included at the bottom of the README just as a note for visitors to your repository.
It might be better to break down your README into smaller chunks with headers, such as for the section where you discuss similar packages.
Functions are well written with guards for invalid arguments.

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

Briefly describe any working relationship you have (had) with the package authors.
[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 exported functions
[x] Examples: (that run successfully locally) for all exported functions
[ ] Community guidelines: including contribution guidelines in the README or CONTRIBUTING, and DESCRIPTION with URL, BugReports and Maintainer (which may be autogenerated via Authors@R).

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: Unit tests cover essential functions of the package and a reasonable range of inputs and conditions. All tests pass on the local machine.
[x] Packaging guidelines: The package conforms to the rOpenSci packaging guidelines.

Estimated hours spent reviewing:

[x] Should the author(s) deem it appropriate, I agree to be acknowledged as a package reviewer ("rev" role) in the package DESCRIPTION file.

1:30

Review Comments

Overall a very nice package with meticulous implementation. No errors or bugs found while reviewing and running checks and tests locally. A few additional details:

Detailed and nicely organized vignette+ link available in readme, which I could test
All checks of the local repo run seamlessly
The package uses extensive testing which is quite nice
Unknown license – maybe rename to Copyright holder or something similar
Delete merged branches to keep repo clear
I would have presented the Usage information on the Readme page instead of having to go to the website

Great job overall!

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

Briefly describe any working relationship you have (had) with the package authors.
[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 exported functions
[x] Examples: (that run successfully locally) for all exported functions
[ ] Community guidelines: including contribution guidelines in the README or CONTRIBUTING, and DESCRIPTION with URL, BugReports and Maintainer (which may be autogenerated via Authors@R).

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: Unit tests cover essential functions of the package and a reasonable range of inputs and conditions. All tests pass on the local machine.
[x] Packaging guidelines: The package conforms to the rOpenSci packaging guidelines.

Estimated hours spent reviewing:

[ ] Should the author(s) deem it appropriate, I agree to be acknowledged as a package reviewer ("rev" role) in the package DESCRIPTION file.

1.5 hours

Review Comments

The package runs smoothly without any issues and all the tests are passing.
It is nice that you have considered all the errors and created tests for each one of them.
Similar to the python package, details of usage of the function could have been included in the readme section.
Details of similar package in R is missing.
Overall, nice package and good work everyone

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

Briefly describe any working relationship you have (had) with the package authors.
[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 exported functions
[x] Examples: (that run successfully locally) for all exported functions
[] Community guidelines: including contribution guidelines in the README or CONTRIBUTING, and DESCRIPTION with URL, BugReports and Maintainer (which may be autogenerated via Authors@R).

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: Unit tests cover essential functions of the package and a reasonable range of inputs and conditions. All tests pass on the local machine.
[x] Packaging guidelines: The package conforms to the rOpenSci packaging guidelines.

Estimated hours spent reviewing:

[ ] Should the author(s) deem it appropriate, I agree to be acknowledged as a package reviewer ("rev" role) in the package DESCRIPTION file.

Review Comments

Tests were exhaustively designed, nice job.
Functions take little time to execute, which indicates that your code is optimized, congratulations.
Personally don't play video games, so it took me a bit of work to understand how the package is useful and exactly what is the use of each of the function arguments.
The documentation is better compared to the Python package, it describes all function arguments which is helpful.
There are many active branches that you can close assuming that there is no further development now.

UBC-MDS / software-review-2023