[REVIEW]: lintr: Static Code Analysis for R

editorialbot commented 2 days ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@jimhester@lrnv<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @JosiahParry, @SaranjeetKaur Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0f4eccbd59ee5bf5a5be88489581970f"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0f4eccbd59ee5bf5a5be88489581970f/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0f4eccbd59ee5bf5a5be88489581970f/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0f4eccbd59ee5bf5a5be88489581970f)

Reviewers and authors:

Please avoid lengthy details of difficulties in the review thread. Instead, please create a new issue in the target repository and link to those issues (especially acceptance-blockers) by leaving comments in the review thread below. (For completists: if the target issue tracker is also on GitHub, linking the review thread in the issue or vice versa will create corresponding breadcrumb trails in the link target.)

Reviewer instructions & questions

@JosiahParry & @SaranjeetKaur, your review will be checklist based. Each of you will have a separate checklist that you should update when carrying out your review. First of all you need to run this command in a separate comment to create the checklist:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @lrnv know.

✨ Please start on your review when you are able, and be sure to complete your review in the next six weeks, at the very latest ✨

Checklists

📝 Checklist for @JosiahParry

editorialbot commented 2 days ago

Hello humans, I'm @editorialbot, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks.

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@editorialbot commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 2 days ago

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.21105/joss.01686 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: The Tidyverse Style Guide
- No DOI given, and none found for title: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Comp...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Code Complete
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Static program analysis — Wikipedia, The Free Ency...

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 2 days ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.15 s (2445.7 files/s, 308678.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R                              333           4204           8314          28584
XML                              2              0            129           1797
Markdown                        10            360              0           1469
YAML                            13             83             53            433
Rmd                             10            372            881            200
CSV                              1              0              0            124
JSON                             2              0              0             61
vim script                       1             14             21             50
TeX                              1              4              0             37
Dockerfile                       1              3              0             11
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           374           5040           9398          32766
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   583  Michael Chirico
   381  Jim Hester
   214  Indrajeet Patil
   155  AshesITR
    88  Alexander Rosenstock
    57  Florent Angly
    46  Kun Ren
    24  Russ Hyde
    13  Kirill Müller
    10  Dragoș Moldovan-Grünfeld
     8  Forest Fang
     8  Hugo Gruson
     8  dependabot[bot]
     7  Gábor Csárdi
     7  MEO265
     7  Michael Quinn
     7  Russell Hyde
     6  Barret Schloerke
     5  Salim B
     4  JhossePaul
     4  Jonathan Keane
     4  jrnold
     3  Bruce Lee
     3  Daniel Possenriede
     3  Fabian Scheipl
     3  Jennifer (Jenny) Bryan
     3  Konrad Pagacz
     3  Laurent Gatto
     3  eitsupi
     3  huisman
     3  nathaneastwood
     3  olivroy
     2  Alex Branham
     2  Ashley Baldry
     2  Chris Black
     2  Dan Kessler
     2  F-Noelle
     2  Iñaki Úcar
     2  Jack Wasey
     2  Konrad Rudolph
     2  Maëlle Salmon
     2  Micah J Waldstein
     2  Rafael Zayas
     2  dmurdoch
     1  Alessandro Gentilini
     1  Alexis Iglauer
     1  Andrew Choi
     1  Andrés Felipe Quintero Moreano
     1  Anton Bossenbroek
     1  Bernie Gray
     1  Brandon Bertelsen
     1  Christian Diener
     1  Colin Rundel
     1  Daniel Sabanes Bove
     1  Dave Lovell
     1  Derek Chiu
     1  Dragos Moldovan-Grunfeld
     1  Ellis Valentiner
     1  Fleur Kelpin
     1  Florian Kohrt
     1  Frans van Dunné
     1  Frédéric Mahé
     1  Gabor Csardi
     1  Gabriela de Queiroz
     1  Guillaume Gaullier
     1  Hadley Wickham
     1  Hannah Frick
     1  Hao Ye
     1  Hedley
     1  Henning Lorenzen
     1  Hiroaki Yutani
     1  JJ Allaire
     1  James Baird
     1  Jamie Owen
     1  Jeffrey Arnold
     1  Jenny Bryan
     1  Jeremy Werner
     1  Jon Harmon
     1  Josh
     1  Kara Woo
     1  Landon Abney
     1  Leonardo Gama
     1  Mara Averick
     1  Marcel Schilling
     1  Marie-Helene Burle
     1  Mark Miller
     1  Matt Brennan
     1  Matthew T. Warkentin
     1  Nic
     1  Nicholas Masel
     1  Paolo Di Lorenzo
     1  Paul Kaefer
     1  Paul Staab
     1  Randy Lai
     1  Shaopeng
     1  StefanBRas
     1  Stu Field
     1  The Gitter Badger
     1  Tony Kenny
     1  Wesley Burr
     1  Will Landau
     1  Yu ISHIKAWA
     1  Yuu ISHIKAWA
     1  arekbee
     1  banky
     1  bernie gray
     1  jeffwong-nflx
     1  jmaspons
     1  ttriche

editorialbot commented 2 days ago

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1498

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

editorialbot commented 2 days ago

License info:

🟡 License found: Other (Check here for OSI approval)

lrnv commented 2 days ago

@JosiahParry, @SaranjeetKaur greetings! Thanks for accepting to take a bit of time to review this submission. First, do you know how JOSS review are handled, or do you need me to wrap it up for you ? The first thing you have to do is to generate a guide for you -- formatted as a checklist --, using a command @editorialbot generate my checklist. in this discussion. Then if you have more questions, I'll be happy to help

editorialbot commented 2 days ago

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

JosiahParry commented 2 days ago

Review checklist for @JosiahParry

Conflict of interest

[x] I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

[x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

[x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/r-lib/lintr?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@jimhester) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
[x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
[x] Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
[x] Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
[x] Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

[x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
[x] Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
[x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
[x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
[x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
[x] Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

[ ] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
[x] A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
[ ] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
[ ] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
[x] References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

JosiahParry commented 2 days ago

The package, documentation, and testing is great. Please address the below regarding the paper. Notably there isn't a clear summary of lintr for a non-specialist audience, nor is there a state of the field section.

Paper

Please define what a linter is and what their utility is
please make the summary of lintr more explicit than

"The {lintr} package is an open-source R package that provides static code analysis to check for a variety of common problems related to readability, efficiency, consistency, style, etc."
Please provide a description of other static code analysis packages—e.g. luke tierneys codetools, Mango's goodpractice, and more recently flint
Please provide a description of what a linter is prior discussing some of the 113 provided by {lintr}.
Under Efficiency the use of "the users" can remove "the".
Sometimes the users might not be aware
Sometimes users might not be aware

openjournals / joss-reviews