Group 4 - Pokehelpyer (Python)

Submitting Author: Ritisha Sharma (@ritisha2000) All current maintainers: Jakob Thoms (@J99thoms), Raul Aguilar (@AguilarRaul), Sneha Sunil (@snesunil) Package Name: Pokehelpyer One-Line Description of Package: Pokemon team builder based on the resistances and weaknesses of existing team members. Repository Link: https://github.com/UBC-MDS/pokehelpyer Version submitted: v0.1.7 Editor: Jakob Thoms (@J99thoms), Raul Aguilar (@AguilarRaul), Sneha Sunil (@snesunil), Ritisha Sharma (@ritisha2000) Reviewer 1: Renee Kwon Reviewer 2: Ty Andrews Reviewer3: Sarah Abdelazim Archive: TBD
Version accepted: TBD Date accepted (month/day/year): TBD

Description

pokehelpyer is a Python package designed to assist Pokémon players in building teams of pokémon. Users can provide a list of pokémon currently on their team, and pokehelpyer will recommend a suitable pokémon to add to the team based on the current team's overall weaknesses and resistances.

Scope

Please indicate which category or categories this package falls under:
- [ ] Data retrieval
- [x] Data extraction
- [ ] Data munging
- [ ] Data deposition
- [ ] Reproducibility
- [ ] Geospatial
- [ ] Education
- [ ] 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 pokemon players of all ages who would like to create a more robust team.
- Are there other Python packages that accomplish the same thing? If so, how does yours differ?
There are websites and applications that help build pokémon teams, such as the Mariland Team Builder. However these tools simply present the player with a visual representation of their current team's weaknesses and resistances. They don't make recommendations. In other words, the existing tools simply given visual representations of the dictionaries created by calc_weaknesses and calc_resistances. There doesn't seem to be any existing Python packages which will use the weaknesses/resistances data to make reccomendations for additional team members.
- 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:

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

- [ ] 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.

[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

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
[x] Badges for:
- [x] Continuous integration and test coverage,
- [] 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
[ ] 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.
[ ] 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.
[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

It would be nice to mention that the recommend function runs for 692 iterations and this takes ~2 minutes to produce an output
It would be nice to include the expected output of each function in the Usage section of the Readme instead of only providing examples
It would be nice to add code coverage percentage badge
It would be nice to show how this package is different than other python pokemon packages out there, and how the package plans to be updated with the new generation pokemons that are not listed in pokemon.csv file
Code coverage is 93% which is great, but it is lower than the R version of the package... Maybe try to get it up to 97% like its R counterpart.

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,
- [ ] 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
[] 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 hr

Review Comments

It would be helpful if the readme could have included demonstration examples with the outputs.
For the weaknesses/resistances function, it could be more interpretable for users if categories (such as "resistant", "no effect", "non-resistant") were used instead of integers.
The docstrings for each function was very descriptive and helpful.
Overall, the package was very nostalgic and fun to use. I'm confident I can build a strong pokemon team with it! Gotta catch em all!

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,
- [ ] 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)

[x] The author has responded to my review and made changes to my satisfaction. I recommend approving this package.

Estimated hours spent reviewing: 1.5

Review Comments

I like that the readme gives good depth of info on the four main functions
in the readme you reference the 2 datasets and the pokemon.csv has an accented e in it, I would make sure no accented letters are used anywhere for file references etc.
I would recommend making the example usage part of the readthedocs as short and sweet as possible, the amount of text is likely not required and may put off some users from solving the problem they fac of catching them all!
I would recommend putting the link to your documentation in your actual repo home page under settings, makes it nice to get to easily
I would fix the incorrectly rendered latex in the example usage notebook, either remove it and do it with plain tecxt/images or figure out why it's not building correctly.

UBC-MDS / software-review-2023