Group 2 - twitterAnalysis (R)

name: twitterAnalysis (R) about: A way to quickly determine the sentiment of a given Twitter user.

Submitting Author Name: Renzo Wijngaarden Submitting Author Github Handle: !--author1-->@RenzoWijn<!--end-author1-- Other Package Authors Github handles: (comma separated, delete if none) @Yurui-Feng, @roanraina, @tiger12055 Repository: https://github.com/UBC-MDS/twitterAnalysis Version submitted: Submission type: TBD Editor: TBD Reviewers: Yingxin Song, Qurat-ul-Ain Azim, Mengjun Chen, Alexander Taciuk

Archive: TBD Version accepted: TBD Language: English

Paste the full DESCRIPTION file inside a code block below:

Package: twitterAnalysis
Title: Assess a twitter user's character based on their recent tweets
Version: TBD
Authors@R: 
    c(person("Andy", "Wang", role = c("aut", "cre"), email = "Andy.Wang@ubc.net"),
              person("Yurui", "Feng", role = "aut"),
              person("Roan", "Raina", role = "aut"),
              person("Renzo", "Wijingaarden", role = "aut"))
Description: Twitter is a popular social media app with over 1 billion user accounts. 
             While a diversity of users is a strength, some individuals have concerns with the prevalence of "troll" accounts and individuals who exhibit unconstructive tone and diction whom they deem not worth engaging with. The package twitterpersona is intended to provide insight into a twitter user based on their tweet history in effort to determine if an account is worth engaging with. 
             The package provides an easy to use interface for determining the general sentiment expressed by a user.
License: MIT + file LICENSE
Encoding: UTF-8
Roxygen: list(markdown = TRUE)
RoxygenNote: 7.2.3
Suggests: 
    covr,
    knitr,
    rmarkdown,
    testthat (>= 3.0.0)
Config/testthat/edition: 3
Depends: 
    dplyr,
    stopwords,
    tm,
    wordcloud,
    twitteR,
    syuzhet
URL: https://github.com/UBC-MDS/twitterAnalysis,
    https://ubc-mds.github.io/twitterAnalysis/
BugReports: https://github.com/UBC-MDS/twitterAnalysis/issues
VignetteBuilder: knitr

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.):
- [x] 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
- [x] text analysis
Explain how and why the package falls under these categories (briefly, 1-2 sentences):

Our package retrieves Tweets from a specific user via the Twitter API (data retrieval), performs sentiment analysis (text analysis) and visualises the results in a word cloud.

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

The audience for our package is Twitter users who are looking to quickly see what kind of other users they're interacting with.

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

academicTwitterR is similar to our package, but focuses more on the frequency and analysis of how a user is tweeting. Our solution is low-code and easier to interact with.

(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
[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.
[ ] 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.

Review Comments

there is noing inside test-load_twitter_msg.R
could include more code inside installing part of readme file
it is better to have a enrionment file
no discussion for lisence
there are only two functions branches

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
[ ] Vignette(s): demonstrating major functionality that runs successfully locally
[x] Function Documentation: for all exported functions
[ ] 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.
[ ] Functionality: Any functional claims of the software been confirmed.
[ ] 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: 2

[ ] 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 package is a pretty interesting concept. Here are a few comments:

Thank you for including some setup instructions about Twitter's developer side, and how to get to the credentials / IDs that are needed to run the package. This made it more clear on where to find all of the credentials necessary for this package.
I can find the documentation for most of the functions that are outlined in the Functions section of the README, but it seems that the load_twitter function has been renamed to load_twitter_by_user, and there is another function called load_twitter_by_keywords too. Perhaps update the README for consistency.
Attempting to run the example in the README, after inputting the required tokens/credentials, resulted in the following error:
- Trying to troubleshoot this lead me to this post, https://github.com/geoffjentry/twitteR/issues/137 , and following this, trying to use the setup_twitter_oauth() function directly lead to this error:
- The error persists even after regenerating the consumer key+secret and access token+secret. If there is any other setup that is required for using this package (for example, setting up a callback URL? Or if there are any other packages/package versions that are required for this run?), then please make this clear in your installation instructions and/or vignette, otherwise we can't seem to actually run your functions or examples.
The tests all ran locally successfully! Perhaps include some documentation for them, such as a comment to briefly describe what the test is checking for. As well, please note that following warning appears when running a test for the word cloud generation, specifically for testing the dimensions of the output. If possible, maybe use the specified updated function to avoid this warning in the future:
One last thing to note is that in the Contributing section of the README, there isn't actually a link to the CONTRIBUTING.md file, which is hidden in the .github folder so it can be hard to find. Perhaps include the direct link for ease of access.
Otherwise, good job guys!

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
[ ] Vignette(s): demonstrating major functionality that runs successfully locally
[x] Function Documentation: for all exported functions
[ ] 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.
[ ] Functionality: Any functional claims of the software been confirmed.
[ ] 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

The idea of this package is truly exciting, and it is materialized very well in the code. The group has done a great job at collaborating well, which is evident from the package repository. I would also like to list some of my observations and suggestions that might help with some looking into.

The code for functions is very well documented. I like that it's easy to understand.
I like that the authors have provided links to their GitHub profiles. However, the link to one of the authors' GitHub profile is broken.
The documentation link in the README leads to the readthedocs page which contains an essential copy of the README itself. A meaningful link to the documentation would be very helpful.
It would probably be a good idea to introduce functions first before presenting specific examples for their usage in the README.
I am not a twitter user. When I tried signing up, for some reason, I was unable to sign up for the developer account, which kept me from running the example cases. However, I can see from the PR logs that the functions. and vignettes are running fine.
The local check() does not run successfully. The twitterAnalysis.Rmd fails to build. It might help to check what's possibly causing this. Possibly due to lack of Twitter account tokens in which case, the problem is specific to my trial
I cannot find the CONTRIBUTING.md file. It would be nice to link to it in the README or to put it in an easily visible place.
The test file for test-load_twitter_msg.R is empty. Adding tests for the relevant function might help. Again, great job with the package and function implementations

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: 1.5 hrs

[ ] 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 did not want to create a developer account so I based it on what's in the Repo, but it did install correctly. I can also see that the GitHub actions passed, which gives me confidence about the function working correctly
Appreciated the succinct summary of the project
Robust documentation for all functions
Appreciated the conversation around the licences
Really liked that you had that html of the examples
Perhaps a new feature would be to test if that account is a bot (sends repetitive messages, for example)

UBC-MDS / software-review-2023