Closed mpadge closed 7 years ago
@mpadge short question even before the real editor checks, why do you use the development version of covr
?
That's not part of the CRAN submission (obviously), and is used because of Jim Hester's help here - see his extended commit message at top. It's temporary and will be resolved once covr
is updated on CRAN.
Nice, thanks!
Thanks for your submission @mpadge! I'm currently looking for reviewers.
The CHECK problem was solved thanks to using the --no-multiarch option. :relieved: I've cleaned this issue a bit after that. :angel:
I found a typo, "demographc" in bike_demographic_data.Rd:10
Reviewers: @eamcvey @chucheria Due date: 2017-06-25
Thanks @maelle, the warnings are indeed my fault - sorry about that, and hopefully fixed already. I've no idea why sqlite3/sqlite3.o
would not be recognised because your machine built it in the first place. First let's clarify that the warnings are gone, and hope that that fixes the .o
issue...
Thanks @eamcvey @chucheria for accepting to review this package! 😺 As a reminder here are the review template and the reviewing guidelines. Your reviews are due on the 2017-06-25.
@mpadge can you confirm that/when you've changed the cleanup process? (related to what @jeroen said "The cleanup script should usually only clean files generated by configure. Files generated by make should be cleaned via a clean section in Makevars" / or use cleanup.win as mentioned by Jim Hester)
Thanks @maelle, and thanks in advance @eamcvey and @chucheria for agreeing to review - exciting to hear what you might think of it! I've done the Jim Hester cleanup.win
option. Jeroen is nevertheless correct that cleanup
should only relate to configure
-generated files, and I will definitely transition to a single Makevars
soon. The whole build is nevertheless clean from here on for all OS's.
@chucheria @eamcvey friendly reminder that your reviews are due in 10 days, on the 2017-06-25. :wink:
The package includes all the following forms of documentation:
URL
, Maintainer
and BugReports
fields in DESCRIPTIONEstimated hours spent reviewing:
4h
It is a great package overall, it removes the necessity of have knowledge of many bike data APIs/file system of open data, which is a great time and effort saver. It will make more sense as more bike open data is available inside the package.
Vignette has example uses and is very complete.
I played with the functions a bit, it is a simple package and it allows you to use API information locally.
I found some errors executing the code.
I downloaded NY data from 2016-01 to 2016-05 once I changed to Los Angeles city, it told me that all data already exist.
dl_bikedata (city = 'New York City USA', dates = 201601:201605)
Downloading 201605-citibike-tripdata.zip
Downloading JC-201601-citibike-tripdata.csv.zip
Downloading JC-201602-citibike-tripdata.csv.zip
Downloading JC-201603-citibike-tripdata.csv.zip
Downloading JC-201604-citibike-tripdata.csv.zip
Downloading JC-201605-citibike-tripdata.csv.zip
dl_bikedata(city = 'la', dates = 201601:201605)
All data files already exist
Once I downloaded NY data, I wanted to store it with store_bikedata
:
ny <- store_bikedata (city = 'nyc', bikedb = 'bikedb', dates = 201601:201605)
Downloading data for nyc
All data files already exist
Adding data to sqlite3 database
Unzipping raw data files ...
Show Traceback
Rerun with Debug
Error in unzip(f, list = TRUE) :
zip file '/var/folders/zc/yccgnjm528j4x_665t_rz0km0000gn/T//RtmpU6AJg6/201603-citibike-tripdata.zip' cannot be opened
If I do the store_bikedata
from the start everything runs great.
macOS Sierra:
Installation in macOS was smooth. A warning popped up in installation and in every test:
Warning: Installed Rcpp (0.12.11) different from Rcpp used to build dplyr (0.12.10). Please reinstall dplyr to avoid random crashes or undefined behavior.
I reinstalled dplyr
and the warning dissapeared.
Scripts are named with a hyphen instead of snake_case, something that rOpenSci recommends and packages seem to follow that pattern. Functions and variables are well named and explained.
Please, tell me if I didn't explained well any of the comments or errors.
Many thanks for your review @chucheria ! :smile_cat:
@eamcvey your review was due a few weeks back, will you be able to get it done soon?
A general FYI: I had to upload a new version to CRAN because changes in the LA data were causing failures. I also addressed the first issue that @chucheria encountered so the package now gives the more informative message:
> dl_bikedata(city = 'la', dates = 201601:201605)
There are no la files for those dates
I was unable to repeat the second error, but note that tempdir()
seems to have a double forward slash - .../T//RtmpU6AJg6/
instead of presumably .../T/RtmpU6AJg6/
. If that were the problem, I would have no idea of either ultimate cause or solution?
thanks for the update @mpadge !
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
The package includes all the following forms of documentation:
URL
, BugReports
and Maintainer
(which may be autogenerated via Authors@R
).Paper (for packages co-submitting to JOSS)
The package contains a
paper.md
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).
Estimated hours spent reviewing: 5
This is a nice package that made it easy to access the data as promised. The linked article showing analysis of this type of data is helpful to make clear what can be done with it. I was able to work through the vignette successfully and look at some additional things on my own.
Some specific issues I noticed:
Thanks a lot for your review @eamcvey ! :smile_cat:
Thanks both @chucheria and @eamcvey for your reviews! :smiling_imp: I should have addressed all issues raised sometime next week, and will respond accordingly.
"All data files already exist"
has been replaced with "There are no [city] files for that date."
CONTRIBUTING.md
and CONDUCT.md
- thanks to both reviewers for pointing out this absence on my part.dplyr
(or dbplyr
) issues. These arose in response to the upgrade to dplyr_0.7
, which led to interesting situations for many package developers. bikedata
has resolved all such issues by dropping the dplyr
dependency.bike_db_totals()
- thanks! An example was previously included in bike_demographic_data()
, but just one single line that was presunably easy to overlook. The reviewer's comment nevertheless inspired me to provide a much more extensive example, during which I also relealised that there were some formatting issues for demographic data from some cities as stored in the database. These have all been rectified.~~1. I was unable to reproduce the problem encountered by @chucheria, but have already noted that I have previously encountered strange behaviour when running store_bikedata()
multiple times. I suspect that the main cause of such problems is index creation, which may only be performed once for a database, and any attempt to create indices that already exist will throw an error. Current
bikedata
issue#38 should largely resolve these issues.~~ - now done!
NEWS.md
file which I presume the first reviewer simply overlooked.GPL-3
which is a copyright license and therefore requires no LICENSE
file. (LICENSE files are also rejected by CRAN for GPL-3 packages: they only apply to non-copyright licenses such as MIT).vim
, emacs
, or other non-RStudio
interfaces.)function (x)
rather than function(x)
, but now explain this in CONTRIBUTING.md
: "Words of text are separated by whitespace, and so code words should be too." Let's just say I'm pre-empting physchological analyses of R-coding style akin to what has been done for R colour palettes. Spaces will one day reign ...DESCRIPTION
, to which this package accords, so I think current status is okay in that regard. I'll happily modify if required or desired.vignette()
will not automatically load the vignette when the package is psuedo-loaded with devtools::load_all()
. I nevertheless checked with a "proper" locall load (R CMD install <tarball>
) and was then able to open vignette()
as expected.Thanks again @eamcvey and @chucheria for helpful insight into improving the package!
Awesome work @mpadge! When do you think you'll be able to solve the issue mentioned in "Changes not yet implemented"?
I agree reg. the authors list.
@eamcvey and @chucheria are you happy with the changes?
Thanks @maelle! That change is issue#38, which I will definitely resolve within the coming week. I'll let you know as soon as it's done. :bike: :biking_man: :biking_woman: :bike:
@mpadge For info you can already add the rOpenSci badge to the README of bikedata
, for now it'll show "under review2" and after approval "peer-reviewed".
[![](http://badges.ropensci.org/116_status.svg)](https://github.com/ropensci/onboarding/issues/116)
@maelle done!
Thanks for your comments @mpadge. I'm sorry I overlooked the NEWS
file! So embarrasing... I didn't know you don't need a license, anyway if CRAN doesn't admit it better this way, I guess I'm used to do the LICENSE
and gitignore
first thing.
About the error you commented you couldn't reproduce, I'll try to do the same thing as soon as I have some time in case it appears again an open an issue with more info in case it appears, does this sound good?
Thank you both @mpadge and @maelle! This has been fun!
@maelle issue#38 now done. This should resolve previous errors. Note that these are system dependent because of the different ways the bundled SQLite3 code is compiled, so it is unfortunately not possible to systematically reproduce the errors. Nevertheless, I suspect most of them arose through somehow trying to create indexes on a database that already had indexes in it. The latest modifications will robustly prevent this ever happening, and so I am pretty confident will resolve these kinds of errors. I have taken the liberty of striking through the relevant bit of my previously responses ("Changes not yet implemented")
@mpadge ok, thanks a lot! The package looks good to me but I'll wait for @chucheria to have had time to look at the error again before approving. :-)
absolutely - it's really important to ensure it really has been solved!
No error, the package seems to be solid. Thanks for the patience!
@mpadge sorry for the delay! The package is now approved, great work, and thanks @eamcvey + @chucheria for your reviews!
To-dos:
[ ] Transfer the repo to the rOpenSci organization under "Settings" in your repo. I have invited you to a team that should allow you to do so.
[ ] OPTIONAL You can add the reviewers in DESCRIPTION as "rev" if you want to (and if they agree). See e.g. this example. If you do this you'll need to build the package on R-devel for CRAN submission (because "rev" is now accepted in R-devel)
[ ] Add the (brand new!) "Peer-reviewed" badge to your README (in the future people will add this on submittal; it updates through the stages of review):
[![](https://badges.ropensci.org/116_status.svg)](https://github.com/ropensci/onboarding/issues/116)
[ ] Fix any links in badges for CI and coverage to point to the ropensci URL. (we'll turn on the services on our end.)
[ ] Activate Zenodo watching the repo
[ ] Tag and create a release so as to create a Zenodo version and DOI
[ ] Submit to JOSS using the Zenodo DOI. We will tag it for expedited review.
Welcome aboard! We'd also love a blog post about your package, either a short-form intro to it (https://ropensci.org/tech-notes/) or long-form post with more narrative about its development. ((https://ropensci.org/blog/). Let me know if you are interested.
Thanks @maelle for all of the help and guidance getting the package through to this exciting last stage! You list of TODOs:
osmdata
) Let me know if i need to do anything thereFinally, re: blog post: absolutely interested! Yes please!
You mean you didn't have to submit it? :thinking: Having @karthik as an editor of the R package surely helped. :wink:
In my experience you need to submit it, choose Karthik as JOSS editor.
Reg. the blog post let me tag @stefaniebutland who'll get in touch with you.
okay, i've submitted it now, and put Karthik as the editor:
ping @richardellison, so you know where we're at here. new publication pending!
I think we can close this now (I told Karthik about the JOSS submission, I check there regularly, and the blog post discussion doesn't need this to be open). Your review badge will get green! 😁
YIPPEE!!! 🚲 🚲 🚲 I didn't realise until I just discovered the ropensci issue on this that i should have but didn't actually request the explicit approval of @chucheria and @eamcvey for me to insert those rev
roles in the DESCRIPTION. May I kindly request retrospective approval now? Please!
Oops and I forgot to remind it to you.
Thanks for adding me! You have my very happy approval @mpadge !
@mpadge (I'm responding later than I had hoped) Great to hear you're interested in contributing a blog post about this package. I hope it gets more eyes on it and generates some enthusiasm and input.
For rOpenSci blog post you could do either a short post for the Developer Blog that has a technical focus, or do a post for the main blog whose audience is broader.
Main blog post would include more narrative about your motivation for creating the package, unmet need, how-to use, good to end with a thank you to package reviewers with links to their GitHub or Twitter, point readers to issues and what you think is next to improve the package and invite people to open or address an issue etc.
Deadlines:
Practical instructions:
Which type of post are you thinking of?
I had been thinking of inviting you to contribute a post about osmdata
, so if you're interested you could do both as developer blog style, or one dev and one main.
Did I miss anything?
thanks @stefaniebutland, and no worries about delayed response. I'm absolutely keen to get these packages known in any and all ways possible. Absolutely happy for at least one to be a main blog entry, for which my preference would be bikedata
, with osmdata
then shucked off to a dev blog post. If that's okay with you, i'll happily get cracking on a PR for main blog post on bikedata
Summary
Download and aggregate data from all public hire bicycle systems which provide open data, currently including Santander Cycles in London, U.K., and from the U.S.A., citibike in New York City NY, Divvy in Chicago IL, Capital Bikeshare in Washington DC, Hubway in Boston MA, and Metro in Los Angeles LA.
https://github.com/mpadge/bikedata
Data retrieval
All those interested in analysing urban mobility - urban and general transport modellers and planners, urban scientists. Anyone wanting to make cool data visualisations of movement through some of the euro-american world's biggest cities (like this prominent example).
No current R packages enable importing of public hire bicycle data. @ramnathv has his visualising bike share repo, but that's not an R package. I've heard rumours of a package in development for live station feeds along these lines, but even if and when that appears, it would focus on real-time data (primarily bicycle availability), whereas
bikedata
focusses exclusively on archiving and aggregating historical data.Requirements
Confirm each of the following by checking the box. This package:
Publication options
paper.md
with a high-level description in the package root or ininst/
.Package will be archived as soon as the ropensci review process has been completed, in accordance with JOSS policies.
Detail
[x] Does
R CMD check
(ordevtools::check()
) succeed? Paste and describe any errors or warnings:[x] Does the package conform to rOpenSci packaging guidelines? Please describe any exceptions:
If this is a resubmission following rejection, please explain the change in circumstances:
If possible, please provide recommendations of reviewers - those with experience with similar packages and/or likely users of your package - and their GitHub user names:
@ramnathv because of his prominent prior work on analysing public hire bike systems
Note that
goodpractice
flags only:cran-comments.md