Open mpadge opened 3 years ago
@ropensci-review-bot help
Hello @mpadge, here are the things you can ask me to do:
# List all available commands
@ropensci-review-bot help
# Show our Code of Conduct
@ropensci-review-bot code of conduct
# Switch to "seeking reviewers"
@ropensci-review-bot seeking reviewers
# Approve the package
@ropensci-review-bot approve
# Add a user to this issue's reviewers list
@ropensci-review-bot add xxxxx to reviewers
# Remove a user from the reviewers list
@ropensci-review-bot remove xxxxx from reviewers
# Assign a user as the editor of this submission
@ropensci-review-bot assign @username as editor
# Remove the editor assigned to this submission
@ropensci-review-bot remove editor
# Close the issue
@ropensci-review-bot approve
# Close the issue
@ropensci-review-bot out of scope
# Check whether a package is good to send out to review
@ropensci-review-bot goodtoreview
@ropensci-review-bot check package
git hash: c207f3b8
R CMD check
found one warningImportant: All failing checks above must be addressed prior to proceeding
Package License: MIT + file LICENSE
This package is in the following category: Dimensionality Reduction, Clustering and Unsupervised Learning
Click here to view output of 'srr_report', which can be re-generated locally by running the `srr_report() function from within a local clone of the repository.
The statistical properties of this package are all within normal ranges.
The package has: - Code in R (69%, in 10 files) and C++ (31%, in 7 files) - 4 Authors - 3 Vignettes - No internal data - 6 imported packages - 9 exported functions (median 25 lines of code) - 63 non-exported functions in R (median 5 lines of code) - 13 C++ functions (median 15 lines of code) - No C++ `class` or `struct` objects --- 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 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 | 10| 55.4| | |files_vignettes | 4| 94.3| | |files_tests | 12| 90.6| | |loc_R | 597| 50.2| | |loc_vignettes | 617| 89.2| | |loc_tests | 396| 67.3| | |loc_per_fn_r | 6| 22.7| | |loc_per_fn_r_exp | 25| 57.6| | |loc_per_fn_r_not_exp | 5| 17.3| | |loc_per_fn_src | 15| 57.2| | |num_params_per_fn | 6| 79.2| | |loc_per_fn_r | 6| 22.7| | |loc_per_fn_r_exp | 25| 57.6| | |loc_per_fn_r_not_exp | 5| 17.3| | |loc_per_fn_src | 15| 57.2| | |fn_call_network_size | 30| 49.9| | ---
Click here for interactive network visualisation of calls between objects in package.
goodpractice
and other checks### 3a. Continuous Integration Badges [![github](https://github.com/RoheLab/fastadi/workflows/R-CMD-check/badge.svg)](https://github.com/mpadge/fastadi-demo/actions) **GitHub Workflow Results** |name |conclusion |sha |date | |:-------------|:----------|:------|:----------| |Commands |skipped |694594 |2021-01-04 | |pkgdown |failure |4fc3b6 |2021-03-17 | |R-CMD-check |failure |4fc3b6 |2021-03-17 | |test-coverage |failure |4fc3b6 |2021-03-17 | ---- ### 3b. `goodpractice` results --- ### Test coverage ([`covr`](https://github.com/jimhester/covr)) - :heavy_check_mark: Package coverage is 78.8% - :heavy_multiplication_x: The following files have coverage < 75%: - `R/fastadi-package.R` (0.00%), - `R/generative-model.R` (0.00%) - `R/object.R` (30.00%) --- ### Cyclomatic Complexity ([`cyclocomp`](https://github.com/MangoTheCat/cyclocomp)) - :heavy_check_mark: Maximal cyclomatic complexity is 13 (`adaptive_impute`, `citation_impute`) --- ### R CMD check ([`rcmdcheck`](https://github.com/r-lib/rcmdcheck)) R CMD check generated the following warning: ``` 1. checking Rd cross-references ... WARNING Missing link or links in documentation object 'adaptive_impute.Rd': ‘stat’ See section 'Cross-references' in the 'Writing R Extensions' manual. ``` In addition, the following tests failed: - `no_description_depends` - `no_import_package_as_a_whole` - `rcmdcheck_rd_cross_references` --- ### Code linting ([`lintr`](https://github.com/jimhester/lintr)) [`lintr`](https://github.com/jimhester/lintr) observed potential issues with code style in 106 lines ---
Processing may not proceed until the items in the top section marked with :heavy_multiplication_x: have been resolved (other items in subsequent sub-sections may be ignored for moment at your discretion).
@ropensci-review-bot goodtoreview
Thanks, about to check whether the package is review-ready
:rocket:
This package is a great shape! Please proceed to finding reviewers.
:wave:
@ropensci-review-bot assign @mpadge as editor
Assigned! @mpadge is now editor. Please review the package check details, comment on any areas for reviewers to focus on, and assign reviewers when ready”
@ropensci-review-bot add @noamross to reviewers
@noamross added to the reviewers list. Review due date is 2021-05-24. Thanks @noamross for accepting to review! Please refer to our reviewer guide.
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
Briefly describe any working relationship you may have (had) with the package authors (or otherwise remove this statement)
[x] As the reviewer I confirm that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work (If you are unsure whether you are in conflict, please speak to your editor before starting your review).
The following standards currently deemed non-applicable (through tags of @srrstatsNA
) could potentially be applied to future versions of this software:
Please also comment on any standards which you consider either particularly well, or insufficiently, documented.
For packages aiming for silver or gold badges:
It complies with a lot of standards.
The package includes all the following forms of documentation:
The following sections of this template include questions intended to be used as guides to provide general, descriptive responses. Please remove this, and any subsequent lines that are not relevant or necessary for your final review.
Estimated hours spent reviewing:
@ropensci-review-bot approve silver
Approved! Thanks @{{issue_author}} for submitting and {{reviewers-list}} for your reviews! :grin:
To-dos:
pkgdown
website and are ok relying only on rOpenSci central docs building and branding,
pkgdown
website with a redirecting pagehttps://docs.ropensci.org/package_name
URL
field alongside the link to the GitHub repository, e.g.: URL: https://docs.ropensci.org/foobar (website) https://github.com/ropensci/foobar
[![AppVeyor Build Status](https://ci.appveyor.com/api/projects/status/github/ropensci/pkgname?branch=master&svg=true)](https://ci.appveyor.com/project/individualaccount/pkgname)
. If Appveyor does not pick up new commits after transfer, you might need to delete and re-create the Appveyor project. (Repo transfers are smoother with GitHub Actions)codemetar::write_codemeta()
in the root of your package.Should you want to acknowledge your reviewers in your package DESCRIPTION, you can do so by making them "rev"
-type contributors in the Authors@R
field (with their consent). More info on this here.
Welcome aboard! We'd love to host a post about your package - either a short introduction to it with an example for a technical audience or a longer post with some narrative about its development or something you learned, and an example of its use for a broader readership. If you are interested, consult the blog guide, and tag @stefaniebutland in your reply. She will get in touch about timing and can answer any questions.
We've put together an online book with our best practice and tips, this chapter starts the 3d section that's about guidance for after onboarding. Please tell us what could be improved, the corresponding repo is here.
Last but not least, you can volunteer as a reviewer via filling a short form.
@ropensci-review-bot remove @noamross from reviewers
@noamross removed from the reviewers list!
@ropensci-review-bot add @adamhsparks to reviewers
@adamhsparks added to the reviewers list. Review due date is 2021-06-12. Thanks @adamhsparks for accepting to review! Please refer to our reviewer guide.
@ropensci-review-bot help
Hello @mpadge, here are the things you can ask me to do:
# List all available commands
@ropensci-review-bot help
# Show our Code of Conduct
@ropensci-review-bot code of conduct
# Switch to "seeking reviewers"
@ropensci-review-bot seeking reviewers
# Approve the package
@ropensci-review-bot approve
# Add a user to this issue's reviewers list
@ropensci-review-bot add xxxxx to reviewers
# Remove a user from the reviewers list
@ropensci-review-bot remove xxxxx from reviewers
# Assign a user as the editor of this submission
@ropensci-review-bot assign @username as editor
# Remove the editor assigned to this submission
@ropensci-review-bot remove editor
# Close the issue
@ropensci-review-bot approve
# Close the issue
@ropensci-review-bot out of scope
# Various package checks
@ropensci-review-bot check package
Submitting Author: Mark Padgham (@mpadge) Repository: https://github.com/mpadge/fastadi-demo Version submitted: Editor: !--editor-->@mpadge<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: !--reviewers-list-->@adamhsparks<!--end-reviewers-list--
Due date for @adamhsparks: 2021-06-12Archive: TBD Version accepted: TBD
General Information
Who is the target audience and what are scientific applications of this package?
Paste your responses to our General Standard G1.1 here, describing whether your software is:
Please include hyperlinked references to all other relevant software.
(If applicable) Does your package comply with our guidance around Ethics, Data Privacy and Human Subjects Research?
Badging
What grade of badge are you aiming for? (bronze, silver, gold)
If aiming for silver or gold, describe which of the four aspects listed in the Guide for Authors chapter the package fulfils (at least one aspect for silver; three for gold)
Technical checks
Confirm each of the following by checking the box.
autotest
checks on the package, and ensured no tests fail.srr_stats_pre_submit()
function confirms this package may be submitted.This package:
Publication options
Code of conduct