oec package #217
Comments
|
@pachamaltese Thanks for your submission! From a quick look you checked "contains a vignette with examples of its essential functions and uses." and "has a test suite." but I do not see neither a vignette nor a test suite in the GitHub repo? We can put this submission on hold while you add them, and we can provide links about e.g. unit testing if necessary. |
|
Also, could you please expand here on the added value of the data processing offered by your package as opposed to using the original data sources? |
|
@maelle thanks, no worries, let me check my laptop hdd vs my external drive, I probably forgot to move something About the added value if I run
On the other hand, with API calls I would need to read https://atlas.media.mit.edu/hs92/export/2010/chl/chn/show/ and also to read this and also this After reading those 15 json files the user would need some additional operations to see the same result as
|
|
Hi @maelle. |
|
Hi @pachamaltese! Thanks. I've been traveling so my initial checks will take a bit longer than expected. I am not sure I understood how your package got scattered over hard drives &co but please ask us any git/GitHub question you might have. See also http://happygitwithr.com ☺ |
|
thanks a lot @maelle happy travelling!! I have +5 external hdd since my macbook fried itself and I lost tons of tidy useful data :( |
Editor checks:
Editor commentsThanks again for your submission @pachamaltese! Here are a some points that should be solved/discussed before I start looking for reviewers. Note that now that you have everything on GitHub, you shouldn't loose pieces again, which is good news. Sorry to hear about your Macbook! 😢 This process is an ongoing discussion so ask any question/make any remark you might have about my comments! Code
origin_destination <- origin_destination %>%
mutate(trade_exchange_val =
!!sym("export_val") + !!sym("import_val"))
would become origin_destination <- mutate(origin_destination,
trade_exchange_val = !!sym("export_val") + !!sym("import_val"))
Data
Documentation
Misc
goodpractice output ✖ omit "Date" in DESCRIPTION. It is not required and it gets invalid quite
often. A build date will be added to the package when you perform `R CMD build` on
it.
✖ 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\getdata.R:56:1
R\getdata_batch.R:44:1
R\getdata_batch.R:68:1
tests\testthat\test-oec.R:3:1
tests\testthat\test-oec.R:15:1
... and 10 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\getdata_batch.R:66:13Reviewers: @aedobbyn @cimentadaj |
|
@pachamaltese 👋 any question or update? 😺 |
|
@maelle not yet, I've been moving a lot. Can I send it tomorrow at night? |
|
If you think you won't have enough time to work on the package in the next weeks, we can set this submission on hold until you have more time. |
|
tomorrow's night is ok, I have to complete the vignettes and that takes 1-2 hours :) |
|
@maelle it's ok now, I did all the steps from your feedback and just a few are explained why yes/no to it is better for this particular API. |
|
Thanks, can you please answer with the explanations in this thread? 🙂 |
Maelle' s initial feedbackCode
would become
Data
Documentation
Misc
|
|
Thanks a lot @pachamaltese! 😺 I started looking and two small comments already:
|
|
The link to the logo is also broken at the moment. |
|
Thanks again @pachamaltese! A few more points before I start looking for reviewers
[](https://github.com/ropensci/onboarding/issues/217)It'll indicate the package is under review, until after onboarding when it'll then indicate it was peer-reviewed.
It is good practice to
✖ write unit tests for all functions, and all package code in
general. 89% of code lines are covered by test cases.
R/getdata.R:44:NA
R/getdata.R:47:NA
R/getdata.R:50:NA
R/getdata.R:55:NA
R/getdata.R:59:NA
... and 13 more lines
✖ omit "Date" in DESCRIPTION. It is not required and it gets
invalid quite often. A build date will be added to the package when you
perform `R CMD build` on it.
✖ 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\getdata.R:47:1
R\getdata.R:50:1
R\getdata.R:59:1
R\getdata.R:64:1
R\getdata.R:69:1
... and 5 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\getdata.R:111:32
R\getdata.R:174:26
R\getdata.R:200:25I think that you could easily increase code coverage, looking at https://codecov.io/gh/pachamaltese/oec/src/master/R/getdata.R you should
Thanks for all your work! |
|
Great, thanks ! I'll do that before 14.00
And sorry I didn't notice I broke links when renaming
…On Sun, Jun 10, 2018, 8:26 AM Maëlle Salmon ***@***.***> wrote:
Thanks again @pachamaltese <https://github.com/pachamaltese>!
A few more points before I start looking for reviewers
-
The URL in the repo description should be updated.
-
The documentation website has to be updated (it still documents the
function that was removed)
-
The logo doesn't appear any more in the README.
-
You can now remove my feedback from the README 😉 and have a more
prominent link to the pkgdown website in it.
-
You can now add a peer-review badge to your README
[](https://github.com/ropensci/onboarding/issues/217)
It'll indicate the package is under review, until after onboarding when
it'll then indicate it was peer-reviewed.
-
Please add a code of conduct to your repo, e.g. via
usethis::use_code_of_conduct()
-
Rbuildignore data-raw e.g. via usethis::use_build_ignore("data-raw")
-
The codecov badge has a wrong URL.
-
goodpractice output
It is good practice to
✖ write unit tests for all functions, and all package code in
general. 89% of code lines are covered by test cases.
R/getdata.R:44:NA
R/getdata.R:47:NA
R/getdata.R:50:NA
R/getdata.R:55:NA
R/getdata.R:59:NA
... and 13 more lines
✖ omit "Date" in DESCRIPTION. It is not required and it gets
invalid quite often. A build date will be added to the package when you
perform `R CMD build` on it.
✖ 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\getdata.R:47:1
R\getdata.R:50:1
R\getdata.R:59:1
R\getdata.R:64:1
R\getdata.R:69:1
... and 5 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\getdata.R:111:32
R\getdata.R:174:26
R\getdata.R:200:25
I think that you could easily increase code coverage, looking at
https://codecov.io/gh/pachamaltese/oec/src/master/R/getdata.R you should
-
test that the function returns errors when it should
-
test more use cases (e.g. when destination == "all")
Thanks for all your work!
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#217 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJn6Oa6i5RC86vR5agDIBsMCxfApsP9-ks5t7RB6gaJpZM4T-I-i>
.
|
|
You're welcome, no hurry and no problem! |
|
Note that only one vignette appeared on the pkgdown website last time I looked |
|
@maelle ready, I used Jim Hester's |
|
Many thanks, I'll now start looking for reviewers! |
|
Thanks @aedobbyn and @cimentadaj for accepting to review this package! 😸 Your reviews are due on 2018-07-04. As a reminder here are links to our bookdown in particular the packaging guidelines and reviewer's guide and to the review template. |
|
Will do this weekend! |
|
Looking good @pachamaltese! Here are a few notes. I hope to be able to to look through more thoroughly this weekend but in case I'm not able to I wanted to give you something. By topic, in no particular order:
Other
This is looking really solid overall -- will be excited to use it very soon! |
|
No problem, glad it's helpful! And makes sense -- it doesn't affect the functionality of course and assuming rlang stays backward-compatible (which I think they will?) you should be fine if they change the tidyeval syntax. |
|
get_data
get_countrycode
Other
|
|
Thanks for implementing those changes so quickly! Last bit of suggestions from me, I think:
|
|
thanks a lot @aedobbyn !! |
|
Great job @pachamaltese. I think @aedobbyn has covered most of the major problems. Here are some minor concerns.
Hope these are useful! |
|
@cimentadaj once again thanks for the feedback !! I completed all the points that Amanda listed (above I wrote a clickable list that I completed) the server is down again, please give 1-2 days to complete Jorge's addresses? @cimentadaj: any chance to contact you by email? mine is " m vargas a/t dcc uchile cl" |
|
Yes @pachamaltese , feel free to contact me and no worries about the 1-2 days. |
|
@aedobbyn @cimentadaj thanks a lot!!
|
|
@aedobbyn @cimentadaj Hi. Thanks for the feedback! there are four point I can't solve without breaking the check :S |
|
👋 @pachamaltese did you get any chance to make progress on the package? When you do, please summarize your response again (using your checklist again I guess 😉). |
|
@maelle Hi, I was not able to test a lot because the server has been down a lot actually. |
|
@pachamaltese any update? |
|
Hi Maelle
The server is just acting weird.
Can we put this on hold?
Yesterday I spoke to Amanda and Jorge about providing an alternative API
that would be hassle-free.
Best
…On Tue, Oct 16, 2018, 1:25 AM Maëlle Salmon ***@***.***> wrote:
@pachamaltese <https://github.com/pachamaltese> any update?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#217 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJn6OSLbH9Nksd8-NGk4wq6cnnhuxbxjks5ulV_KgaJpZM4T-I-i>
.
|
|
Do you mean you don't trust the data provider enough with stability? |
|
Exactly, at the present time that' the problem.
Last year it was different
…On Tue, Oct 16, 2018, 11:56 AM Maëlle Salmon ***@***.***> wrote:
Do you mean you don't trust the data provider enough with stability?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#217 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJn6Oef7UB08vWE37dgCVnvIWxC0SVTIks5ulfOrgaJpZM4T-I-i>
.
|
|
Ok, too bad, will put the submission on hold, I hope you can solve the problem, good luck! |
|
@pachamaltese 👋, any news? |
|
Hi Maelle
Sorry about the long silence!
I have a tentative PostgreSQL database and now I only have to work on the
API. The good part is that both Jorge and Amanda are collaborating on this.
If you also want to participate please do not hesitate to give ideas to
create a better API.
Best!
—————
*Mauricio Vargas Sepúlveda 帕夏*
Do you like Data Science? visit pacha.hk
你爱科学数据专吗？你走pacha.hk
El jue., 6 de dic. de 2018 a la(s) 07:00, Maëlle Salmon (
notifications@github.com) escribió:
… @pachamaltese <https://github.com/pachamaltese> 👋, any news?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#217 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJn6OSeG4jl5GGT2v8Rmexs1HF1fz3Llks5u2OqsgaJpZM4T-I-i>
.
|
|
Cool to read! Is there a public repo we can link from here in case someone reads the thread and gets curious? |
|
sure !! I have created this organization to make my last 3 years of work
fully reproducible
https://github.com/tradestatistics
—————
*Mauricio Vargas Sepúlveda 帕夏*
Do you like Data Science? visit pacha.hk
你爱科学数据专吗？你走pacha.hk
El jue., 6 de dic. de 2018 a la(s) 10:22, Maëlle Salmon (
notifications@github.com) escribió:
… Cool to read! Is there a public repo we can link from here in case someone
reads the thread and gets curious?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#217 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJn6ORf8VRizQyg9eFGZAlW8UEnD0ffUks5u2RoDgaJpZM4T-I-i>
.
|
|
@maelle Hi!! A new package based on But in broader terms, tradestatistics.io is something new I made with a help from the awesome community and everything is pure R (even the API, which is where the new There are tons of changes such as the ability to inspect different tables, filter by commodity code length, etc provided I made my own PSQL DB. Probably I am using a laser beam to open a tuna can, but anyways I've tried do to something to foster reproducibility. Do you have ideas to rename the package? Least but not last, api.tradestatistics.io/friend is a (boring?) joke I made with the API. It should be easy to complete the joke with the correct query. |
|
👋 @pachamaltese! Happy New Year! Congrats on the project (and fun endpoint)! Should we close this issue? And when your new package is ready you can open a pre-submission inquiry (if it does the exact same things at the package using the broken server used to do, it should be in scope, but better asking first). I find |
|
@maelle ok !! so I'm closing this and opening a new submission |
Maybe best open a pre-submission inquiry and wait until the package is more mature until a full submission (unless the package is mature already). |
](https://github.com/ropensci/onboarding/issues/217){kind=link}
Summary
oec provides an easy way to obtain data from the Observatory of Economic Complexity by accessing its API.
https://github.com/pachamaltese/oec-r-package
databases, because the package connects to an API and does 3 or more API calls to simplify things for the final user who wants imports/exports and some metrics such as % of increase/decrease.
Non-expert users that use international trade data. This can also be targeted to intermediate/advanced users who can benefit from the speed and short syntax that this package provides.
yours differ or meet our criteria for best-in-category?
Not at the moment (in 2 yrs this is the only one)
No.
Requirements
Confirm each of the following by checking the box. This package:
Publication options
paper.mdmatching JOSS's requirements with a high-level description in the package root or ininst/.Detail
Does
R CMD check(ordevtools::check()) succeed? Paste and describe any errors or warnings:Does the package conform to rOpenSci packaging guidelines? Please describe any exceptions:
None.
No.
I don't really know.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: