image_modifier - Group 8

[karan-khubdikar]

Submitting Author: Karan Khubdikar (@karan-khubdikar) All current maintainers: (@lichunubc, @celestezhao, @hema2022ubc ) Package Name: image_modifier One-Line Description of Package: Function to modify images (rotating/slicing/adding frame/changing channels) Repository Link: https://github.com/UBC-MDS/image_modifier Version submitted: 2.0.0 Editor: @ttimbers
Reviewer 1: Iris Luo (@iris0614) Reviewer 2: Beth Ou Yang (@beth-ouyang) Reviewer 3: Prabhjit Thind (@Prabh95) Reviewer 4: Oak Chongfeungprinya () Archive: TBD JOSS DOI: TBD Version accepted: TBD Date accepted (month/day/year): TBD

---

Code of Conduct & Commitment to Maintain Package

• [x] I agree to abide by pyOpenSci's Code of Conduct during the review process and in maintaining my package after should it be accepted.
• [x] I have read and will commit to package maintenance after the review as per the pyOpenSci Policies Guidelines.

Description

ImageModifier is a Python package dedicated to providing an intuitive and efficient way to manipulate images. This package focuses on core image processing functions, allowing users to easily modify images through operations like rotating, slicing, adding frames, and adjusting RGB channels. The primary goal is to offer a straightforward way for basic yet powerful image transformations, making it a useful tool for image processing.

Scope

• Please indicate which category or categories. Check out our package scope page to learn more about our scope. (If you are unsure of which category you fit, we suggest you make a pre-submission inquiry):

  • [ ] Data retrieval
  • [ ] Data extraction
  • [x] Data processing/munging
  • [ ] Data deposition
  • [ ] Data validation and testing
  • [ ] Data visualization[^1]
  • [ ] Workflow automation
  • [ ] Citation management and bibliometrics
  • [ ] Scientific software wrappers
  • [ ] Database interoperability

Domain Specific & Community Partnerships

- [ ] Geospatial
- [ ] Education
- [ ] Pangeo

Community Partnerships

If your package is associated with an existing community please check below:

• [ ] Pangeo
  • [ ] My package adheres to the Pangeo standards listed in the pyOpenSci peer review guidebook

[^1]: Please fill out a pre-submission inquiry before submitting a data visualization package.

• 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?

  • Are there other Python packages that accomplish the same thing? If so, how does yours differ?

  • 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] uses 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 tutorial with examples of its essential functions and uses.
• [x] has a test suite.
• [x] has continuous integration setup, such as GitHub Actions 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: JOSS accepts our review as theirs. You will NOT need to go through another full review. JOSS will only review your paper.md file. Be sure to link to this pyOpenSci issue when a JOSS issue is opened for your package. Also be sure to tell the JOSS editor that this is a pyOpenSci reviewed package once you reach this step.*

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.

Confirm each of the following by checking the box.

• [x] I have read the author guide.
• [ ] I expect to maintain this package for at least 2 years and can help find a replacement for the maintainer (team) if needed.

Please fill out our survey

• [x] 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.

[beth-ouyang]

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.
• [ ] 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:
  • [ ] Continuous integration and test coverage,
  • [x] Docs building (if you have a documentation website),
  • [x] A repostatus.org badge,
  • [x] Python versions supported,
  • [x] 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.
• [x] 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:
  • [x] All tests pass on the reviewer's local machine for the package version submitted by the author. Ideally this should be a tagged version making it easy for reviewers to install.
  • [x] Tests cover essential functions of the package and a reasonable range of inputs and conditions.
• [ ] 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.
  • [ ] 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:

---

Review Comments

• The installation guidelines are clear and work out successfully.
• Functions look good, and they work well in my local machine.
• The documantation (including docstring and Vignette) is thorough and help me to understand th e functions and the usage.
• I would suggest that when running the pytest, it might be better to skip showing the images or including some description for the images because users (like me) might not fully understand the meaning of each image result.

[iris0614]

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.
• [ ] Vignette(s) demonstrating major functionality that runs successfully locally.
• [ ] 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:     - [ ] Continuous integration and test coverage,     - [X] Docs building (if you have a documentation website),     - [X] A repostatus.org badge,     - [X] Python versions supported,     - [X] 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:  

• [ ] 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:   - [X] All tests pass on the reviewer's local machine for the package version submitted by the author. Ideally this should be a tagged version making it easy for reviewers to install.   - [X] Tests cover essential functions of the package and a reasonable range of inputs and conditions.
• [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

   

• [X] 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:  
• [X] A short summary describing the high-level functionality of the software
• [X] Authors: A list of authors with their affiliations
• [X] A statement of need clearly stating problems the software is designed to solve and its target audience.
• [X] 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:   2.5  hours  

  Review Comments

  Thank you for the excellent work; I have learned a lot from your package, and it is truly impressive. In light of the positive aspects, I would like to offer some constructive feedback: 1. File Compatibility Enhancement: The add_frame function currently specifies compatibility only with JPEG files. Expanding this to include PNG files would significantly enhance the usability, considering the widespread use and popularity of PNG formats in various applications. 2. Homepage Image Display Issue: There appears to be an issue with displaying the homepage picture on the web page. This could be investigated and resolved to ensure a visually appealing and engaging user experience. 3. Code Coverage Improvements: While the code coverage is commendable, achieving 100% coverage is always a good goal. Notably, the coverage percentages for src/image_modifier/add_frame.py(96%) and src/image_modifier/select_channel.py (95%) could be enhanced to ensure robust testing and reliability.

  4. Enhancement for pytest Execution: I recommend either omitting the display of images during pytest execution or providing accompanying descriptions. This would be particularly helpful for users, like myself, who may not have a complete understanding of the significance of each image result. 5. Enhanced Application Introduction: The current text introduction about the application is concise but may be challenging for individuals without a professional background to comprehend. Consider expanding and simplifying the introduction to make it more accessible to a broader audience, ensuring that even users with limited technical expertise can grasp the application's purpose and functionality. This will contribute to a more user-friendly experience. Once again, great job on the package, and I believe these suggestions will further elevate its overall quality and user satisfaction.  

[Prabh95]

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.
• [ ] 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:
  • [ ] Continuous integration and test coverage,
  • [x] Docs building (if you have a documentation website),
  • [x] A repostatus.org badge,
  • [x] Python versions supported,
  • [x] 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.
• [ ] 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:
  • [x] All tests pass on the reviewer's local machine for the package version submitted by the author. Ideally this should be a tagged version making it easy for reviewers to install.
  • [x] Tests cover essential functions of the package and a reasonable range of inputs and conditions.
• [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 hrs

---

Review Comments

I like the whole idea of this package which is similar to OpenCV and Pillow, for providing functionalities around image processing.

Positives:

1. Installation instructions were pretty concise and easy to follow
2. Docstring details and Error handling is on point. High test coverage.
3. I like the easy readibility and narration of the example notebook

Improvements:

1. Rename Example to Vignette: Your package has the Vignette notebook but it is named as Example.ipynb. Example and Vignette documentations have their own distinct purposes. Example notebook is a more concise and code-centric document that showcases specific use cases and functionalities of a package. A vignette is a more extensive and narrative-style document that explains the concepts and features of a package in a tutorial-like manner. Your example notebook is actually a Vignette since its a narration and I would suggest to rename it and optionally create a separate example notebook if required.
2. Pytest images: The test images generated during pytest run lack details and supplemental information for someone new testing it. How do I know if the images are correctly generated or not? Could also do away with those images.
3. Avoid printing the whole numpy array in Documentation: In the example notebook, instead of printing the whole numpy array could just print the variable datatype. The documentation would look cleaner by doing that as it is unnecessarily increasing the document length and extra scroll. Could use isinstance method, isinstance(my_variable, np.ndarray) to confirm for an np array.

[sivakornchong]

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.
• [ ] Vignette(s) demonstrating major functionality that runs successfully locally.
• [ ] 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:
  • [ ] Continuous integration and test coverage,
  • [x] Docs building (if you have a documentation website),
  • [x] A repostatus.org badge,
  • [x] Python versions supported,
  • [x] 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.
• [ ] 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:
  • [ ] All tests pass on the reviewer's local machine for the package version submitted by the author. Ideally this should be a tagged version making it easy for reviewers to install.
  • [x] Tests cover essential functions of the package and a reasonable range of inputs and conditions.
• [ ] Continuous Integration: Has continuous integration setup (We suggest using Github actions but any CI platform is acceptable for review)
• [ ] 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 hr

---

Review Comments

Great package so far! The installation instruction is easy to follow and I have completed them accordingly. The Example.ipynb works as per intended.

Three pieces of comments for possible improvements here:

1. The enviroment file may no longer be necessary since the virtual environment is already being managed in the poetry file. The whole thing could run on my base environment. In that case, to run the jupyter lab, please remember to add jupyter-lab into the poetry.
2. I tried running pytest on my computer. It passed everything besides this function at def test_slice_image_edge_cases(). The error is C:\ProgramData\miniconda3\envs\image_modifier\lib\tkinter__init__.py:2270: TclError. I tried this on the image_classifier environment and there is still this error...
3. Branches management on github repository: I think it would be great to remove some unnecessary branches on the repository

Overall, great work! The documentations are excellent and I really enjoy the process.