Group 12 - bmi.calculator (R)

bmi.calculator

Submitting Author Name: Qurat-ul-Ain Azim Submitting Author Github Handle: !--author1-->@qurat-azim<!--end-author1-- Other Package Authors Github handles: @Natalie-cho, @hcwang24, @netsgnut Repository: https://github.com/UBC-MDS/bmi-calculator-r Version submitted: Submission type: TBD Editor: Qurat-ul-Ain Azim, Natalie Cho, HanChen Wang, Kelvin Wong Reviewers: Sam Li, Ceasar Wong, Mike Guron, Gaoxiang Wang

Archive: TBD Version accepted: TBD Language: en

Paste the full DESCRIPTION file inside a code block below:

Package: bmi.calculator
Title: BMI Calculator, and a Little Bit More
Version: 0.0.0.9000
Authors@R: c(
    person("Qurat-ul-Ain", "Azim", email = "qazim1@student.ubc.ca", role = c("aut", "cph")),
    person("Natalie", "Cho", email = "natcho1@student.ubc.ca", role = c("aut", "cph")),
    person("HanChen", "Wang", email = "hcwang24@student.ubc.ca", role = c("aut", "cph")),
    person("Kelvin", "Wong", email = "now@student.ubc.ca", role = c("aut", "cph", "cre"))
  )
Description: This 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 for these questions.
License: MIT + file LICENSE
Encoding: UTF-8
Roxygen: list(markdown = TRUE)
RoxygenNote: 7.2.1
Suggests: 
    covr,
    testthat (>= 3.0.0)
Config/testthat/edition: 3
Imports: 
    plotly

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
- [ ] field and lab reproducibility tools
- [ ] database software bindings
- [ ] geospatial data
- [ ] text analysis
- [x] educational data visualization
Explain how and why the package falls under these categories (briefly, 1-2 sentences):

The package provides educational computations and visualizations to track and improve health metrics.

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

To the best of our understanding, there are currently no packages in the R ecosystem that offer functionality similar to this package.

(If applicable) Does your package comply with our guidance around Ethics, Data Privacy and Human Subjects Research?

Yes

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.

N/A

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
[X] 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

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 error for running all functions in Jupyter Lab for this R pacakge. Please see the error message: Error in loadNamespace(j <- i[[1L]], c(lib.loc, .libPaths()), versionCheck = vI[[j]]): namespace ‘vctrs’ 0.5.1 is already loaded, but >= 0.5.2 is required
It might be beneficial to include a clear link of doc in the README for reference.
For similar packages listed in the README, maybe you can consider adding references to existing Python packages for comparison.
Maybe it is better to include graphical examples in your vignettes to enhance the understanding of the package's functionality
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

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
[x] 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

I really like the idea of this R package, it's straightforward, easy to use and understand.
When I try to create the plot for my BMI, it would be nice if there is any warning/log message printed out so that I know which parameter I might input wrongly.
Some characters in the plot are trimmed off, (e.g. "50" in the plot is missing on the right)
Would be nice if the package user can change the color of the plot which gives flexibility to the output plot.
I like that this team selected the Plotly package which is available in both Python & R and minimizes the code changes during development, great job.

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
[x] 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: 30 mins

[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 usage and the outputs of the functions in R are consistent with the python version, which makes the user easily get familiar with both versions. Also, the similar coding style makes further implementation of the package easier
The merge history shows the team did well on the version control, and the branch’s names indicate a reasonable work distribution among them.
The R version of this package rounded calculated_bmi and other functions’ s output into two decimals, which is better than the python one.
Good data visualization, a clear reflection of the health level interval of BMI, projected BMI trajectory and projected weight loss.
Maybe giving a further explanation of the Body Mass Index graph is a good idea since some elements in the graph are not very straightforward for users to know immediately.

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
[x] 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

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; however, the figures could use some adjustments as certain bits are cut off ( e.g. the Body Mass Index one is missing the "50", other figures are cropped very close to the edge of the title)
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
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 small nitpick, but it appears that the vignette on the website is just a copy of the README (minus the suitability within R ecosystem, contributing, license, and credits sections). Perhaps it would be better to include a different example in the vignette with more explicit instructions provided

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

UBC-MDS / software-review-2023