Add new review.Rmd #117
Add new review.Rmd #117
Conversation
|
Here I share my review. You may want to see two places -- my comments (review.md) and my changes (Files changes). Thanks a lot for including me in this excellent work! 😄 |
| @@ -11,3 +11,7 @@ | |||
| ^README\.Rmd$ | |||
| ^\.github$ | |||
|
|
|||
| ^review\.md$ | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
After reading my comments, you may remove the file review.md and also its entry in .Rbuildignore.
| - r: 3.2 | ||
| - r: 3.1 | ||
|
|
||
| - r: 3.5 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If you fix the issue by which we need R >= 3.5.0, then you can list here the earlier versions we support, e.g.:
- r: 3.4
- r: 3.3
| #' Title | ||
| #' | ||
| #' Description | ||
| #' | ||
| #' @source ? | ||
| #' | ||
| #' @family database datasets | ||
| "genus_family" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do something like this with all undocumented datasets.
| #' @importFrom utils data | ||
| NULL |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do something like this for each function from an external package that you want to use here; but you can avoid this using the syntax packagename::functionname().
| @@ -1,47 +0,0 @@ | |||
| url: https://forestgeo.github.io/allodb/ | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This seemed to be unused, outdated, and corrupted (formatting issues). The easiest solution for now was to remove it. An empty _pkgdown.yml still works -- it just produces a default site. Look at it by opening data/index.html on your web browser.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you so much @maurolepore on all this. As you may have noticed we merged your pull request and tried to fix some functions for a general improve. I still have few questions about publishing the website:
- Which Branch/folder should I select? If I choose master/root then the website looks as I built it using the corrupt _pkgdown.yaml file (live now). if I choose master/docs it looks like the default built as shown on docs/index.html. I read the "Learn more" on Github pages, it seems it is not recommended to built a website from docs, correct?.
- I would like the final website to look like docs/index/html but change "References" to Functions" and add "Datasets" to include descriptions of tables (currently in References). I understand I need to add more tabs in the navigation bar with navbar. For that, do I write in the new _pkgdown.yaml file in root?
Another big learning curb!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For now I would choose /docs. As you say, that will expose the default website at the URL https://forestgeo.github.io/allodb/. In my experience, having the site in /docs is fine -- as long as you remember to update it with pkgdown::build_site() (see https://pkgdown.r-lib.org/reference/build_site.html).
I prefer to rebuild the site automatically with every push; and do that with this GitHub Action: https://github.com/r-lib/actions/tree/master/examples#build-pkgdown-site. Eventually you might want to do it this way but the result doesn't change -- it just leaves you with one thing less to worry about.
Exactly, to tweak the website you need to tweak the file _pkgdown.yaml. You may see the previous version as an example, then add a piece and rebuild with pkgdown::build_site(), repeating until you are happy. You can see examples of this file in other packages I wrote: e.g. https://github.com/forestgeo/fgeo/blob/master/_pkgdown.yml.
| @@ -0,0 +1,422 @@ | |||
| I believe you would like ideas about how to optimize some functions. Please let me konw which functions you mean and share with me a reproducible example (with the package <https://reprex.tidyverse.org/>) showing me how to use the function I need to inspect. Here I write what I see as I review the structure of the package. For a more complete set of recomendations see <https://devguide.ropensci.org/guide-for-authors.html> and <http://r-pkgs.had.co.nz/>. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Here are my comments. They explain in more detail what I comment on the tab "Files changed" of the pull request.
Thanks for this amazing work. The manuscript is super clear, and the ideas you implemented since last time I saw this project look great. Here I'll add a few comments as I review the code. I start this PR as a draft. I'll let you know when I'm ready to start the discussion. For now I'll collect my thoughts in the file review.md.