Group 3: financial_analyzer - Peer Review Page

[alanpow]

Submitting Author: Alan, Chris, Nicole, Rafe All current maintainers: @alanpow, @chrisgqy, @Nicole-Tu97, @rafecchang Package Name: financial_analyzer One-Line Description of Package: financial_analyzer is a package that helps users solve everyday finance and accounting problems that may arise when running or analyzing a business or service. Repository Link: https://github.com/UBC-MDS/financial_analyzer Version submitted: version 2.0.0 Editor: @ttimbers Reviewer 1: Shawn Hu Reviewer 2: Merete Lutz Reviewer 3: Hancheng Qin Reviewer 4: Paolo De Lagrave-Codina 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

• Include a brief paragraph describing what your package does: The financial_analyzer package has the goal of helping users solve various finance based problems related to accounting and business operations. The current iteration of the package can be used to understand a business's Cost and Revenue relationships, as well as the Return on Investment. The package implements and easy to use, plug and play parameter ingestion to produce financial results and indicators to help business owners, investors, or members of the financial community.

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
  • [ ] Data processing/munging
  • [ ] Data deposition
  • [ ] Data validation and testing
  • [X] Data visualization[^1]
  • [X] 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:

• [x] Pangeo
  • [X] 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.
• [ ] 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

- [X] 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. - [X] 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

• [ ] 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.

[meretelutz]

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.
• [ ] 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
• [ ] Badges for:
  • [ ] Continuous integration and test coverage,
  • [X] 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
• [X] Any additional setup required to use the package (authentication tokens, etc.)
• [ ] 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.
  • [ ] 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

• [ ] 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.
  • [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: 1.5 hours

---

Review Comments

1. I had an error when I was trying to set up the package environment when running the code you included in the README. Running conda create -n --financial_analyzer python=3.9 -y gave me the error conda create: error: argument -n/--name: expected one argument. There wasn't an environment .yml file in the project, but I used my base environment and things were working.
2. This is a very small issue, but I don't think you should include the function parameters when listing the package's functions in the README. It makes the list very busy to look at and harder to parse through. I also think the code underneath the Usage sub-header is a little redundant, and you could include a link to the documentation or vignette here instead.
3. Some of the latex in your documentation is not rendering properly. Under "Return on Investment Calculation" the first sentence reads Now we will calcuate the percentage return on investment (ROI,) which is $\frac{\text{current value}-\text{initial investment}}{\text{initial investment}}\times 100$.. There are also a couple small spell check/grammar errors in the documentation. Copy and pasting the text into a word processor and editing would be beneficial.
4. The CHANGELOG has not been updated for each release of the package. There should be three separate releases (one for each milestone) with description of what has changed underneath.
5. There is an empty financial_analyzer.py file in the src folder, and an empty test_financial_analyzer.py file in the tests folder. I would suggest deleting these unnecessary files.
6. I think you have a small error in your README under the License: Alan PowPowichrowski

Overall good job guys! Just some small edits and the issue with the installation instructions, but otherwise good work!

[hchqin]

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
• [ ] Badges for:
  • [ ] Continuous integration and test coverage,
  • [X] 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.
• [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.
• [ ] 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.
  • [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: 1hr

---

Review Comments

Delightful reading your package and refreshing microeconomics!

1. Example usage: Under the roi section, some Latex is not rendering correctly.
2. Example usage: Currently, the four functions share three similar example backgrounds and each has a complete introduction. It might be helpful to reduce some of the redundant information to make the example usage more concise.
3. pyproject.toml: Package version in the pyproject toml file has not been updated and is still 0.1.0

[paolocodina]

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
• [ ] Badges for:
  • [ ] Continuous integration and test coverage,
  • [x] 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.)
• [ ] 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.
  • [ ] Brief demonstration of package usage (as it makes sense - links to vignettes could also suffice here if package description is clear)
• [ ] 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.
  • [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:

---

Review Comments

The document is overall good, well-written, and seems useful.

1. Including the command 'pip install financial_analyser' before the setup instructions is confusing, as this step should be the final one in the setup process, but it appears at the beginning.
2. Both the 'src/financial_analyser' and 'dist/financial_analyser' directories contain the 'init.py' and 'function.py' scripts. Having only one copy of these functions would be preferable to avoid repetition.
3. While it's a minor issue, 'examples.ipynb' could be improved by featuring multiple examples and graphs, rather than just one.
4. In the unit tests for 'units_for_target_profit', it would have been beneficial to include more extreme cases, such as scenarios with negative profit or non-numeric input values.

[shawnhu444]

Package Review

Shawnhu444

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
• [] Badges for:
• [x ] Continuous integration and test coverage,
• [x] Docs building (if you have a documentation website),
• [ ] A repostatus.org badge,
• [ ] 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:

• [ ] 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
• [ ] The package is easy to install

Functionality

• [x] Installation: Installation succeeds as documented.
• [ ] 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:

• [] 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

1. The package is generally good, but it could be more comprehensive and inclusive.
2. While the package excels in providing comprehensive documentation, including installation instructions and function documentation, it falls short in offering practical examples for all user-facing functions. The inclusion of vignettes and more extensive examples would significantly improve the user experience, aiding in understanding and application of the package's functionality.