karthik
commented
6 years ago Editor checks:
- [x] Fit: The package meets criteria for fit and overlap
- [x] Automated tests: Package has a testing suite and is tested via Travis-CI or another CI service.
- [x] License: The package has a CRAN or OSI accepted license
- [x] Repository: The repository link resolves correctly
- [ ] Archive (JOSS only, may be post-review): The repository DOI resolves correctly
- [ ] Version (JOSS only, may be post-review): Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v1.0.0)?
Editor comments
We understand your desire to keep function names the same to avoid breaking code for current users. The exception is noted.
Thanks for switching to the rOpenSci headers. Below are the comments from goodpractice. Please address the relevant comments as I work towards finding reviewers. You can run goodpractice::gp() on your package anytime as you fix these issues.
── GP qualtRics ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
It is good practice to
✖ write unit tests for all functions, and all package code
in general. 55% of code lines are covered by test cases.
R/getSurveyQuestions.R:52:NA
R/getSurveyQuestions.R:54:NA
R/getSurveyQuestions.R:56:NA
R/getSurveyQuestions.R:57:NA
R/getSurveyQuestions.R:58:NA
... and 262 more lines
✖ use '<-' for assignment instead of '='. '<-' is the
standard, and R users and developers are used it and it is easier
to read your code for them if you use '<-'.
R/utils.R:106:11
✖ avoid long code lines, it is bad for readability. Also,
many people prefer editor windows that are about 80 characters
wide. Try make your lines shorter than 80 characters
R/assertions.R:21:1
R/assertions.R:27:1
R/assertions.R:29:1
R/assertions.R:30:1
R/assertions.R:35:1
... and 83 more lines
✖ avoid calling setwd(), it changes the global environment.
If you need it, consider using on.exit() to restore the working
directory.
tests/testthat/test-getSurvey_reads_stored_survey.R:7:3
tests/testthat/test-registerOptions_reads_from_file.R:15:3
✖ avoid sapply(), it is not type safe. It might return a
vector, or a list, depending on the input data. Consider using
vapply() instead.
R/getSurveyQuestions.R:54:20
R/getSurveyQuestions.R:57:32
R/getSurveyQuestions.R:58:34
R/getSurveyQuestions.R:59:36
R/getSurveyQuestions.R:65:21
... and 1 more lines
✖ avoid 1:length(...), 1:nrow(...), 1:ncol(...),
1:NROW(...) and 1:NCOL(...) expressions. They are error prone and
result 1:0 if the expression on the right hand side is zero. Use
seq_len() or seq_along() instead.
R/getSurveyQuestions.R:69:23
R/utils.R:464:56
✖ fix this R CMD check NOTE: Namespace in Imports field not
imported from: ‘lubridate’ All declared Imports should be used.
✖ fix this R CMD check WARNING: LaTeX errors when creating
PDF version. This typically indicates Rd problems.
✖ fix this R CMD check ERROR: Re-running with no
redirection of stdout/stderr. Hmm ... looks like a package You may
want to clean up by 'rm -rf /tmp/RtmpTvxGKw/Rd2pdf7cb12ddc5dd3'
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Reviewer 1: @kierisi Due date: Feb 25
Reviewer 2: @trinker Due date: March 7
JasperHG90
maelle
kierisi
trinker
stefaniebutland
Summary
This package focuses on the retrieval of survey data using the Qualtrics API and aims to reduce the pre-processing steps needed to prepare this data for analysis. It also supports the import of manual data exports and other metadata (survey flow, questions, number of responses etc.).
https://github.com/JasperHG90/qualtRics
I would categorise it under 'data retrieval', since the package allows users to retrieve data exports from Qualtrics and import this data directly into R.
Target audience are analysts who use Qualtrics to design and disseminate surveys and who want straightforward access to their data using the API.
Not entirely. There are several packages that provide functionality to interact with the Qualtrics API, e.g.
However, I'm not sure if these packages are still under active development.
qualtRicsfocuses entirely on importing survey data and attempts to make this as simple as possible. Furthermore, it is the only package that uses survey metadata to automatically convert survey questions.No pre-submission, but I was contacted by one of your colleagues who invited me to submit the package. See here
Requirements
Confirm each of the following by checking the box. This package:
Publication options
Already on CRAN. See CRAN page
paper.mdmatching JOSS's requirements with a high-level description in the package root or ininst/.Detail
R CMD check(ordevtools::check()) succeed? Paste and describe any errors or warnings:No warnings / errors
Yes with following notes:
Function names: these do not conform to the rOpenSci standards. I chose to keep them as is since this package has already been on CRAN for some time and changing the names of the functions would result in useless existing code for users.
News file: Until recently I used a Changelog.md file for news about changes. I'm now using rOpenSci headers for new releases, but have not done so for previous releases.
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: