search

ropensci / software-review

rOpenSci Software Peer Review.
285 stars 104 forks source link

cancerprof: API Client for extracting data from State Cancer Profiles #637

Open realbp opened 2 months ago

realbp commented 2 months ago

Submitting Author Name: Brian Park Submitting Author Github Handle: !--author1-->@realbp<!--end-author1-- Repository: https://github.com/getwilds/cancerprof Version submitted: 0.1.0 Submission type: Standard Editor: !--editor-->@ldecicco-USGS<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @jromanowska, @ginberg

Archive: TBD Version accepted: TBD Language: en

Package: cancerprof
Title: API Client for State Cancer Profiles
Version: 0.1.0
Authors@R: 
    person("Brian", "Park", , "joon.brianpark@gmail.com", role = c("aut", "cre"),
           comment = c(ORCID = "0009-0008-8274-3057"))
Description: An interface for retrieving data from the NIH NCI State Cancer Profiles API <https://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/>. State Cancer Profiles provides information about data topics including demographics, screening and risk factors, cancer incidence, and mortality for US states, counties, and health service areas.
License: MIT + file LICENSE
URL: https://github.com/getwilds/cancerprof, https://getwilds.org/cancerprof/
BugReports: https://github.com/getwilds/cancerprof/issues
Encoding: UTF-8
Roxygen: list(markdown = TRUE)
RoxygenNote: 7.3.1
Imports: 
    cdlTools,
    cli,
    dplyr,
    httr2,
    magrittr,
    rlang,
    stringr,
    utils
Suggests: 
    knitr,
    rmarkdown,
    testthat
Config/testthat/edition: 3
VignetteBuilder: knitr
Depends: 
    R (>= 2.10)

Scope

cancerprof allows users to retrieve data from State Cancer Profiles for programmable analysis. cancerprof makes accessing the undocumented API from State Cancer Profiles intuitive and easy.

The target audience for cancerprof is anyone who wants to access data from state cancer profiles to conduct programmable analysis without having to navigate the complex nature of its GUI. Specifically, cancer researchers could use cancerprof to conduct reproducable analysis of cancer crossed references with a variety of topics found within the data from state cancer profiles.

Currently there are no other softwares or packages that extracts the publicly available data from State Cancer Profiles.

Cancerprof does not breach any data privacy laws and complies with the ethics policies of ropensci.

https://github.com/ropensci/software-review/issues/635

Cancerprof passes all pkgcheck items

Technical checks

Confirm each of the following by checking the box.

This package:

Publication options

MEE Options - [x] The package is novel and will be of interest to the broad readership of the journal. - [ ] The manuscript describing the package is no longer than 3000 words. - [ ] You intend to archive the code for the package in a long-term repository which meets the requirements of the journal (see [MEE's Policy on Publishing Code](http://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/hub/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)2041-210X/journal-resources/policy-on-publishing-code.html)) - (*Scope: Do consider MEE's [Aims and Scope](http://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/hub/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)2041-210X/aims-and-scope/read-full-aims-and-scope.html) for your manuscript. We make no guarantee that your manuscript will be within MEE scope.*) - (*Although not required, we strongly recommend having a full manuscript prepared when you submit here.*) - (*Please do not submit your package separately to Methods in Ecology and Evolution*)

Code of conduct

ropensci-review-bot commented 2 months ago

Thanks for submitting to rOpenSci, our editors and @ropensci-review-bot will reply soon. Type @ropensci-review-bot help for help.

ropensci-review-bot commented 2 months ago

:rocket:

Editor check started

:wave:

ropensci-review-bot commented 2 months ago

Checks for cancerprof (v0.1.0)

git hash: 36706151

Package License: MIT + file LICENSE

1. Package Dependencies

Details of Package Dependency Usage (click to open)

The table below tallies all function calls to all packages ('ncalls'), both internal (r-base + recommended, along with the package itself), and external (imported and suggested packages). 'NA' values indicate packages to which no identified calls to R functions could be found. Note that these results are generated by an automated code-tagging system which may not be entirely accurate. |type |package | ncalls| |:----------|:----------|------:| |internal |base | 232| |internal |cancerprof | 66| |internal |stats | 28| |internal |graphics | 8| |imports |magrittr | 122| |imports |dplyr | 64| |imports |cli | 55| |imports |rlang | 25| |imports |httr2 | 8| |imports |utils | 2| |imports |cdlTools | 1| |imports |stringr | 1| |suggests |knitr | NA| |suggests |rmarkdown | NA| |suggests |testthat | NA| |linking_to |NA | NA| Click below for tallies of functions used in each package. Locations of each call within this package may be generated locally by running 's <- pkgstats::pkgstats()', and examining the 'external_calls' table.

base

list (76), c (56), structure (28), body (20), class (12), url (9), options (8), paste0 (8), new.env (5), as.raw (4), date (4), which (2)

magrittr

%>% (122)

cancerprof

create_request (20), demo_crowding (1), demo_education (1), demo_food (1), demo_income (1), demo_insurance (1), demo_language (1), demo_mobility (1), demo_population (1), demo_poverty (1), demo_svi (1), demo_workforce (1), dput_resp_demo (1), dput_resp_incd (1), dput_resp_mortality (1), dput_resp_risk (1), fips_scp (1), get_area (1), handle_age (1), handle_alcohol (1), handle_cancer (1), handle_crowding (1), handle_datatype (1), handle_diet_exercise (1), handle_education (1), handle_food (1), handle_income (1), handle_insurance (1), handle_mobility (1), handle_non_english (1), handle_population (1), handle_poverty (1), handle_race (1), handle_screening (1), handle_sex (1), handle_smoking (1), handle_stage (1), handle_svi (1), handle_vaccine (1), handle_women_health (1), handle_workforce (1), handle_year (1), incidence_cancer (1), mortality_cancer (1), process_resp (1), risk_alcohol (1), risk_colorectal_screening (1)

dplyr

across (26), mutate (26), mutate_all (4), all_of (3), na_if (3), filter (2)

cli

cli_abort (55)

stats

setNames (28)

rlang

is_na (23), sym (2)

graphics

frame (8)

httr2

request (8)

utils

data (1), read.csv (1)

cdlTools

fips (1)

stringr

str_pad (1)

2. Statistical Properties

This package features some noteworthy statistical properties which may need to be clarified by a handling editor prior to progressing.

Details of statistical properties (click to open)

The package has: - code in R (100% in 54 files) and - 1 authors - 4 vignettes - no internal data file - 8 imported packages - 19 exported functions (median 26 lines of code) - 83 non-exported functions in R (median 22 lines of code) --- Statistical properties of package structure as distributional percentiles in relation to all current CRAN packages The following terminology is used: - `loc` = "Lines of Code" - `fn` = "function" - `exp`/`not_exp` = exported / not exported All parameters are explained as tooltips in the locally-rendered HTML version of this report generated by [the `checks_to_markdown()` function](https://docs.ropensci.org/pkgcheck/reference/checks_to_markdown.html) The final measure (`fn_call_network_size`) is the total number of calls between functions (in R), or more abstract relationships between code objects in other languages. Values are flagged as "noteworthy" when they lie in the upper or lower 5th percentile. |measure | value| percentile|noteworthy | |:------------------------|-----:|----------:|:----------| |files_R | 54| 96.4| | |files_vignettes | 4| 95.3| | |files_tests | 45| 99.0| | |loc_R | 2611| 88.6| | |loc_vignettes | 492| 77.7| | |loc_tests | 1533| 91.7| | |num_vignettes | 4| 96.6|TRUE | |n_fns_r | 102| 77.0| | |n_fns_r_exported | 19| 65.9| | |n_fns_r_not_exported | 83| 80.0| | |n_fns_per_file_r | 1| 0.2|TRUE | |num_params_per_fn | 4| 54.6| | |loc_per_fn_r | 22| 65.5| | |loc_per_fn_r_exp | 26| 57.4| | |loc_per_fn_r_not_exp | 22| 66.9| | |rel_whitespace_R | 9| 75.4| | |rel_whitespace_vignettes | 39| 83.5| | |rel_whitespace_tests | 12| 84.2| | |doclines_per_fn_exp | 56| 69.3| | |doclines_per_fn_not_exp | 0| 0.0|TRUE | |fn_call_network_size | 124| 82.6| | ---

2a. Network visualisation

Click to see the interactive network visualisation of calls between objects in package

3. goodpractice and other checks

Details of goodpractice checks (click to open)

#### 3a. Continuous Integration Badges [![R-CMD-check.yaml](https://github.com/getwilds/cancerprof/actions/workflows/R-CMD-check.yaml/badge.svg)](https://github.com/getwilds/cancerprof/actions) **GitHub Workflow Results** | id|name |conclusion |sha | run_number|date | |----------:|:--------------------------|:----------|:------|----------:|:----------| | 8546148980|pages build and deployment |success |13c6cf | 6|2024-04-03 | | 8546127063|pkgdown |success |367061 | 17|2024-04-03 | | 8546127064|R-CMD-check |success |367061 | 181|2024-04-03 | | 8546127060|test-coverage |success |367061 | 19|2024-04-03 | --- #### 3b. `goodpractice` results #### `R CMD check` with [rcmdcheck](https://r-lib.github.io/rcmdcheck/) R CMD check generated the following check_fail: 1. cyclocomp #### Test coverage with [covr](https://covr.r-lib.org/) Package coverage: 97.93 #### Cyclocomplexity with [cyclocomp](https://github.com/MangoTheCat/cyclocomp) The following functions have cyclocomplexity >= 15: function | cyclocomplexity --- | --- risk_smoking | 106 demo_population | 70 incidence_cancer | 34 mortality_cancer | 29 demo_insurance | 27 demo_poverty | 27 risk_colorectal_screening | 21 risk_women_health | 19 demo_education | 18 #### Static code analyses with [lintr](https://github.com/jimhester/lintr) [lintr](https://github.com/jimhester/lintr) found the following 102 potential issues: message | number of times --- | --- Avoid using sapply, consider vapply instead, that's type safe | 24 Lines should not be more than 80 characters. | 78

Package Versions

|package |version | |:--------|:--------| |pkgstats |0.1.3.11 | |pkgcheck |0.1.2.21 |

Editor-in-Chief Instructions:

This package is in top shape and may be passed on to a handling editor

ldecicco-USGS commented 2 months ago

@ropensci-review-bot assign @ldecicco-USGS as editor

ropensci-review-bot commented 2 months ago

Assigned! @ldecicco-USGS is now the editor

ldecicco-USGS commented 2 months ago

Editor checks:

Editor comments

There could be more information added to the README, although the bare minimum to meet our criteria is there.

In the examples I tried, my first thought was it might be nice to convert some of the text. For instance:

x <- demo_income(
  area = "usa",
  areatype = "state",
  income = "median family income",
  race = "all races (includes hispanic)"
)
head(x$Rank)
[1] "52 of 52" "51 of 52" "50 of 52" "49 of 52" "48 of 52" "47 of 52"

Seems like c(52, 51, 50, etc) would be a more useful output to an R user. You'd probably want/need another column or something to give the user the " of 52". Not mandatory, could be handy though (maybe a simple function to offer users outside of the function? or a simple example within the examples for how to extract the rank number).

ldecicco-USGS commented 2 months ago

@ropensci-review-bot seeking reviewers

ropensci-review-bot commented 2 months ago

Please add this badge to the README of your package repository:

[![Status at rOpenSci Software Peer Review](https://badges.ropensci.org/637_status.svg)](https://github.com/ropensci/software-review/issues/637)

Furthermore, if your package does not have a NEWS.md file yet, please create one to capture the changes made during the review process. See https://devguide.ropensci.org/releasing.html#news

realbp commented 2 months ago

Thank you for the feedback! I will make those changes in the upcoming version of cancerprof. I have added the ropensci badge and created a NEWS.md file.

What are the next steps in the review process?

ldecicco-USGS commented 2 months ago

I'm asking around to find 2 reviewers. Hopefully that shouldn't take too long!

realbp commented 2 months ago

Great, thank you for a speedy response!

ldecicco-USGS commented 2 months ago

@ropensci-review-bot assign @jromanowska as reviewer

ropensci-review-bot commented 2 months ago

@jromanowska added to the reviewers list. Review due date is 2024-05-20. Thanks @jromanowska for accepting to review! Please refer to our reviewer guide.

rOpenSci’s community is our best asset. We aim for reviews to be open, non-adversarial, and focused on improving software quality. Be respectful and kind! See our reviewers guide and code of conduct for more.

ropensci-review-bot commented 2 months ago

@jromanowska: If you haven't done so, please fill this form for us to update our reviewers records.

jromanowska commented 2 months ago

Hi! Just for your information: I'll start with the review soon. There are many free days in May here, in Norway, but I hope I will not need any extension of the review deadline. :crossed_fingers:

jromanowska commented 2 months ago

@ldecicco-USGS , I just wanted to notify that {goodpractice} package that is dependency for {pkgcheck} has been archived by CRAN (https://cran.r-project.org/web//packages/goodpractice/index.html) so I couldn't install {pkgcheck} and had to install the GitHub version of {goodpractice} by hand.

jromanowska commented 1 month ago

Hi, I'm having problems installing the package:

pak::pak("getwilds/cancerprof")
#> Error: ! error in pak subprocess
#> Caused by error: 
#> ! Could not solve package dependencies:
#> * getwilds/cancerprof: ! pkgdepends resolution error for getwilds/cancerprof.
#> Caused by error: 
#> ! Bad GitHub credentials, make sure that your GitHub token is valid.
#> Caused by error in `stop(http_error(resp))`:
#> ! Unauthorized (HTTP 401).
devtools::install_github("getwilds/cancerprof")
#> Downloading GitHub repo getwilds/cancerprof@HEAD
#> Installing 3 packages: terra, raster, cdlTools
#> Installing packages into ‘/home/jro049/R/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-library/4.3’
#> (as ‘lib’ is unspecified)
#> trying URL 'https://cloud.r-project.org/src/contrib/terra_1.7-71.tar.gz'
#> Content type 'application/x-gzip' length 836573 bytes (816 KB)
#> ==================================================
#> downloaded 816 KB
#> 
#> trying URL 'https://cloud.r-project.org/src/contrib/raster_3.6-26.tar.gz'
#> Content type 'application/x-gzip' length 576421 bytes (562 KB)
#> ==================================================
#> downloaded 562 KB
#> 
#> trying URL 'https://cloud.r-project.org/src/contrib/cdlTools_1.13.tar.gz'
#> Content type 'application/x-gzip' length 43089 bytes (42 KB)
#> ==================================================
#> downloaded 42 KB
#> 
#> * installing *source* package ‘terra’ ...
#> ** package ‘terra’ successfully unpacked and MD5 sums checked
#> ** using staged installation
#> configure: CC: gcc
#> configure: CXX: g++ -std=gnu++17
#> checking for gdal-config... no
#> no
#> configure: error: gdal-config not found or not executable.
#> ERROR: configuration failed for package ‘terra’
#> * removing ‘/home/jro049/R/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-library/4.3/terra’
#> ERROR: dependency ‘terra’ is not available for package ‘raster’
#> * removing ‘/home/jro049/R/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-library/4.3/raster’
#> ERROR: dependencies ‘raster’, ‘terra’ are not available for package ‘cdlTools’
#> * removing ‘/home/jro049/R/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-library/4.3/cdlTools’
#> 
#> The downloaded source packages are in
#>  ‘/tmp/RtmpyrNDzF/downloaded_packages’
#> ── R CMD build ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────#> ──────────────────────────────────────────────────
#> ✔  checking for file ‘/tmp/RtmpyrNDzF/remotes24d8468ec6bf/getwilds-cancerprof-23dbd98/DESCRIPTION’ ...
#> ─  preparing ‘cancerprof’:
#> ✔  checking DESCRIPTION meta-information
#> ─  checking for LF line-endings in source and make files and shell scripts
#> ─  checking for empty or unneeded directories
#> ─  looking to see if a ‘data/datalist’ file should be added
#> ─  building ‘cancerprof_0.1.0.tar.gz’
#>    Warning: invalid uid value replaced by that for user 'nobody'
#>    
#> Installing package into ‘/home/jro049/R/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-library/4.3’
#> (as ‘lib’ is unspecified)
#> ERROR: dependency ‘cdlTools’ is not available for package ‘cancerprof’
#> * removing ‘/home/jro049/R/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-library/4.3/cancerprof’
#> Warning messages:
#> 1: In i.p(...) : installation of package ‘terra’ had non-zero exit status
#> 2: In i.p(...) : installation of package ‘raster’ had non-zero exit status
#> 3: In i.p(...) :
#>   installation of package ‘cdlTools’ had non-zero exit status
#> 4: In i.p(...) :
#>   installation of package ‘/tmp/RtmpyrNDzF/file24d821d2b458/cancerprof_0.1.0.tar.gz’ had non-zero exit status
#> 
#>

Created on 2024-04-30 with reprex v2.1.0

ldecicco-USGS commented 1 month ago

Do you get the same error if you install terra and raster independently?

install.packages(c("terra", "raster"))
jromanowska commented 1 month ago

Today I've tried on another computer (also Linux) and the pak command worked - it actually showed me which system libraries were missing :thinking: After installing those, I could re-run the pak without problems. I will write some comments about this installation process and issues in my review, so that other users may be aware.

ropensci-review-bot commented 1 month ago

:calendar: @jromanowska you have 2 days left before the due date for your review (2024-05-20).

ldecicco-USGS commented 1 month ago

Hi @realbp! I'm sorry I haven't found a 2nd reviewer yet. I sent a few inquires out and didn't get responses back. I should have sent a 2nd batch out but that task got buried in my to-do list. Apologies for the delay! I've sent a few more requests out and hopefully we can get this review process (re)kicked off!

jromanowska commented 1 month ago

Hi, I'm sorry - I need another week to complete the review. May is horrible with lots of free days here in Norway, and a fantastic summer weather this year, leaving too little time for work! :sweat_smile:

ldecicco-USGS commented 1 month ago

@ropensci-review-bot assign @ginberg as reviewer

ropensci-review-bot commented 1 month ago

@ginberg added to the reviewers list. Review due date is 2024-06-12. Thanks @ginberg for accepting to review! Please refer to our reviewer guide.

rOpenSci’s community is our best asset. We aim for reviews to be open, non-adversarial, and focused on improving software quality. Be respectful and kind! See our reviewers guide and code of conduct for more.

ropensci-review-bot commented 1 month ago

@ginberg: If you haven't done so, please fill this form for us to update our reviewers records.

jromanowska commented 1 month ago

Thanks for the patience! Great work with {cancerprof}! :raised_hands:

I'm done with reviewing, please check my comments below.

Package Review

Documentation

The package includes all the following forms of documentation:

Functionality

Estimated hours spent reviewing: 16

Review Comments

Overall, the package is really useful for batch retrieval of data. The functions are well documented and designed, tests are well written. I have some comments that I hope will improve the usability of both, the package and documentation.

Are there improvements that could be made to the code style?

  1. Avoid long lines, e.g., lines 59-63 in demo-education.R could be split after each logical operator. This will also improve readability of the if clauses.

    • run goodpractice::gp() to get more tips

  2. Running the styler package showed that only 4 files could be improved - great work! You don't need to, but you can try that on these files:

    • R/risk-womens-health.R
    • R/risk-smoking.R
    • R/demo-poverty.R
    • R/demo-population.R

Is there code duplication in the package that should be reduced?

  1. When dealing with specific text, like the various levels of smoking, try to gather these in one place.
    Currently, these various levels of smoking are defined in both risk-smoking.R and handle-smoking.R. This is difficult to maintain. One way to deal with that is to create an environment that is loaded when the package is loaded. Then, you can just grab the entire objects from this environment, without the need for the user to be bothered by these objects. Check here for some more explanation.

Are there user interface improvements that could be made?

  1. Use the default values of a function to ease function calling

    • if there is only one possible value for a certain argument, implement this as a default value (I understand that it might change in the future but it could be default without any problem), e.g., demo_language requires the user to write language = "language isolation" even if it's the only possible value
    • the functions that change their required arguments when one of the arguments is chosen are both, difficult to use and difficult to maintain - perhaps you can just give a warning that some arguments are omitted?
    • e.g., in demo_education, instead of aborting when the user does not provide some arguments, one can give a warning and assume default values
    • especially in Risk smoking there is so many various combinations that it might be difficult to use that function when programmatically fetching data - perhaps you could split this into smaller, more focused functions?
    • similarly, for some arguments combinations, another argument is required to be only of a certain value (e.g., incidence_cancer with cancer = ovary is possible only with sex = "females"), thus in such cases, if the user provides a wrong argument the function might just return the correct table and issue a warning

  2. The area and areatype arguments are not checked anywhere, so when user puts a wrong value, they get an uninformative error:

    Error in `process_resp()`:
! Invalid input, please check documentation for valid arguments.
Run `rlang::last_trace()` to see where the error occurred.

Are there performance improvements that could be made?

No issues here. The performace depends here on the speed of internet connection of the user.

Is the documentation clear and sufficient?

Installation

  1. I got error when trying to install the package locally, from the cloned GitHub repo: gdal-config not found - I can't find any mention that any software like gdal is reqiured by cancerprof
  2. trying to install from the net, using pak, as the instructions say, I get the error:
pak::pak("getwilds/cancerprof")
Error:                                                           
! error in pak subprocess
Caused by error: 
! Could not solve package dependencies:
* getwilds/cancerprof: ! pkgdepends resolution error for getwilds/cancerprof.
Caused by error: 
! Bad GitHub credentials, make sure that your GitHub token is valid.
Caused by error in `stop(http_error(resp))`:
! Unauthorized (HTTP 401).
Type .Last.error to see the more details.

(I got this resolved afterwards)

Vignettes and function documentation

  1. The vignettes are basically a list of examples for each of the functions. These examples should be (and in most cases are) in the function documentation. Instead, a vignette should guide a user through a specific use case scenario. Could the authors create a set of scientific questions that the package helps to answer? Especially batch retrieval of data is important.

  2. I could not find explanation of "FIPS"

  3. In "Demo mobility" it says: "The function defaults to "all races", "both sexes", "ages 1+"" - what does it mean? That the data from the source is available only for these categories?
    Usually, when I see "defaults", I would assume that these are the values assumed if there is no specific value for an argument. Here, it seems like there can't be any other value.

  4. There is a mistake in risk_women_health documentation - wrong names of the columns of returned data frame.

  5. The authors could explain the different categories of arguments more, e.g., in risk_women_health, the women_health argument has three possible values ("pap smear in past 3 years, no hysterectomy, ages 21-65", "mammogram in past 2 years, ages 50-74", "mammogram in past 2 years, ages 40+") and the columns of the returned data frame are not informative enough to understand what type of data one actually gets

  6. Is there a typo in risk_alcohol documentation, under alcohol argument? (and does this argument value need to be so long?)

Does the documentation use the principle of multiple points of entry i.e. takes into account the fact that any piece of documentation may be the first encounter the user has with the package and/or the tool/data it wraps?

  1. The webpage is well built, so that one can get to the home page easily
  2. However, there is no common help-page for the package (i.e., help(package = "cancerprof") gives URL '/help/library/cancerprof/html/00Index.html' not found)

Were functions and arguments named to work together to form a common, logical programming API that is easy to read, and autocomplete?

Yes - good choice of naming. Although the demo_ functions sounded at first like "demonstration" to me, but it's logical to abbreviate "demography" as "demo". :)

realbp commented 1 month ago

@jromanowska Thank you so much for your hard work at reviewing cancerprof! I will get to work on implementing improvements based on your feedback.

ropensci-review-bot commented 2 weeks ago

:calendar: @ginberg you have 2 days left before the due date for your review (2024-06-12).

ldecicco-USGS commented 2 weeks ago

@ropensci-review-bot submit review https://github.com/ropensci/software-review/issues/637#issuecomment-2129520979 time 16

ropensci-review-bot commented 2 weeks ago

Logged review for jromanowska (hours: 16)

ldecicco-USGS commented 2 weeks ago

Thank you @jromanowska for the thorough review!

ldecicco-USGS commented 2 weeks ago

Just a heads up that I'll be on leave from June 17-July 8 and may or may not be able to get to this issue during that time.

jromanowska commented 2 weeks ago

I will be on holidays entire July. I can probably read and comment here, but I won't be able to test anything.

ginberg commented 2 weeks ago

Well done with creating this package! See below for my comments.

Package Review

Documentation

The package includes all the following forms of documentation:

Functionality

Estimated hours spent reviewing: 6

Review Comments

ldecicco-USGS commented 2 weeks ago

@ropensci-review-bot submit review https://github.com/ropensci/software-review/issues/637#issuecomment-2163610098 time 6

ropensci-review-bot commented 2 weeks ago

Logged review for ginberg (hours: 6)

ldecicco-USGS commented 2 weeks ago

Awesome, thanks @ginberg !

@realbp go ahead and start responding to the reviews. I'll try to jump in when I can, but will be a little slow for the next 3 weeks.

ropensci-review-bot commented 4 days ago

@realbp: please post your response with @ropensci-review-bot submit response <url to issue comment> if you haven't done so already (this is an automatic reminder).

Here's the author guide for response. https://devguide.ropensci.org/authors-guide.html