Group 14 - Resume Analyser (resumeanalyser)

[gtmx23]

Submitting Author: Gretel Tan All current maintainers: @gtmx23, @Prabh95, @Sampsonyu, @wenyunie Package Name: resumeanalyser One-Line Description of Package: A package to extract, clean, and analyse the text in resumes and compare them to other texts, like job descriptions. Repository Link: https://github.com/UBC-MDS/resumeanalyser.git Version submitted: https://github.com/UBC-MDS/resumeanalyser/releases/tag/2.0.0 Editor: Tiffany Timbers
Reviewer 1: Carrie Yan Reviewer 2: Ian MacCarthy Reviewer 3: Bill Wan Reviewer 4: Farrandi Hernando 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

• The ResumeAnalyser package is a comprehensive toolkit designed for automated and efficient parsing, analysis, and evaluation of resumes. Leveraging advanced algorithms, it extracts key information like educational background, professional experience, skills, and certifications from a variety of resume formats. This package also includes features for ranking candidates based on customizable criteria, making it an indispensable tool for HR professionals and recruiters seeking to streamline the hiring process. Its intuitive API and compatibility with multiple programming languages ensure easy integration into existing HR systems, significantly enhancing recruitment workflows.

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
  • [x] Data extraction
  • [x] Data processing/munging
  • [ ] Data deposition
  • [ ] Data validation and testing
  • [x] 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.
• [ ] 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

• [ ] 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.

[carrieyanyi]

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.
• [ ] 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:
  • [ ] 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.
• [ ] 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.
• [ ] 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
• [ ] 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.
• [ ] 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)

• [ ] 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

This Python package shows an impressive depth of clarity and usefulness in its overview and function usage. The documentation explains well in how to implement each function with real-life examples. However, it's noted that the package could benefit from a more detailed installation guideline to ensure a seamless setup for users of all levels.

• installation: the required python package is 3.11.6. It would be better if there is an environment file or guidelines on successfully installing the package.
• test: testing running command missing 'pytest tests/*'
• contributor: lack of a list of contributors in readme file.
• python ecosystem: it would be better if it had a header, easy to locate.
• badge: it's better to create several related badges at the top of the readme (e.g., python version)

[farrandi]

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.
• [ ] 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),
  • [ ] 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:

• [ ] 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

• [ ] 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.
• [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:

---

Review Comments

• Overall it is a great package! The scope of the project is large that I am impressed by the amount of work that has been done. I have a few suggestions:
  • Currently the installation instructions are not working. I get the error message below.

ERROR: Could not find a version that satisfies the requirement resumeanalyser (from versions: none)
ERROR: No matching distribution found for resumeanalyser

• I would also suggest adding a section on how to install the package as "dev", using the conda environment and poetry. This is useful for people who want to contribute to the package.

• It seems the tests are failing, looking at the ci/cd report at the latest commit.

• You all did a great job and put in a large amount of effort, put your names on the package! Not just "group 14".

• Great documentation on readthedocs! This is a minor nitpick but I would suggest having your other headers like "Introduction", "Getting Started with ..." to be second level headers (##) instead of first level headers (#). This is because the first level header is for the tutorial title. This will display better on the sidebar.

Estimated hours spent reviewing: 1 hour

[ianm99]

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.
• [ ] 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.
• [ ] 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.
  • [x] 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.
• [ ] 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

• [ ] Installation: Installation succeeds as documented.
• [ ] Functionality: Any functional claims of the software been confirmed.
• [ ] 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)

• [ ] 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 couldn't install your package using the instructions provided in the readme (probably cause it's not actually up on PyPI yet?), wasn't immediately sure how to install a developer version without an environment file
• This meant i couldn't actually run your vignettes or run any tests, but they do look like they're written carefully and correctly!
• I thought the write up in the readme was a really nice little introduction to the project, so well done in that respect!
• Link to your read the docs page would be nice to include in the readme
• Doesn't really matter but the format of the docstrings vary from file to file
• Your tests are incredibly thorough 🙌
• Names somewhere would be a nice touch

[billwan96]

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.
• [] 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
• [X] 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.
  • [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
• [ ] 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:
  • [] 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 hour

---

Review Comments

Overall I like your project very much and I am impressed of the work and efforts that you have done. I also found your idea of this project very interesting and beneficial, so great work!

A few comments or suggestions that I hope would be useful to you:

1. Readme file: only the text_reading doesn't have a short description of what each function is doing, a bit of inconsistency.
2. For the text_reading when users submitted a wrong format of file, from a user point of view, I would like the error message to indicate which function I can use instead.
3. Installation: As other reviewers have mentioned, the installation guide is not completely updated.
4. Readthedoc: Personally I would prefer a different organization of the tabs in side bars, e.g. one for readme, one for example usage, contribution etc. (right now I am not too sure which is the example usage at first sight). But again this is just personal preference.
5. The test and the documentations (both readme and the example) are extremely complete.