Duplicate goodpractice checks by editors and reviewers

ropensci / dev_guide

rOpenSci Packages: Development, Maintenance, and Peer Review

https://devguide.ropensci.org

Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 4.0 International

160 stars 58 forks source link

Duplicate goodpractice checks by editors and reviewers #318

Closed maelle closed 3 years ago

maelle commented 6 years ago

Currently we recommend the use of goodpractice in the reviewing guide

If we start having goodpractice reports from Travis hooked to the submission, do we expect reviewers to run goodpractice::gp? Moreover, isn't it already a duplication of efforts since we post goodpractice results in the submission thread?

I understand that we want reviewers to use e.g. devtools::check because of different OS/locale/etc. but does this apply to goodpractice? It takes a while to run and here might be useless?

sckott commented 6 years ago

I think we may want to keep mention of it in the reviewing guide, but only to optionally run - esp if the maintainer/submitter makes changes and then the reviewer may want to run gp again to see how the results change, yes?

Running and deploying gp on travis is good to go https://github.com/ropensci/travis-goodpractice - and updating a Heroku bot to run the checks and ping results back - will be asking editors for feedback

maelle commented 6 years ago

Alternative approach to running goodpractice on Travis in Locke Data's pRojects.

Have a function creating a report including goodpractice, devtools::spell_check
- Function https://github.com/lockedata/pRojects/blob/master/R/project_health.R (could be defined in another package than pRojects)
- Report template https://github.com/lockedata/pRojects/blob/master/inst/templates/health.Rmd
In tic.R run the function and deploy the report to a project-health branch https://github.com/lockedata/pRojects/blob/master/tic.R Result: https://github.com/lockedata/pRojects/tree/project-health#project-health

Pros: easier than using AWS I think? Cons: maybe it's a bit too much to have the report built at every commit to master, and besides, would we ask authors to set this up before submitting?

sckott commented 6 years ago

maybe it's a bit too much to have the report built at every commit to master

yes, i think that's a bit too much.

would we ask authors to set this up before submitting?

seems a bit cumbersome. i'd like it if we could just run it automatically on submission, or at some point in submission, e,.g., when we apply the editor checks label or similar

maelle commented 3 years ago

We should stop asking reviewers to run goodpractice.

maelle commented 3 years ago

fixed in dev