submission: parzer

[sckott]

Submitting Author: Scott Chamberlain (@sckott)
Repository: https://github.com/ropenscilabs/parzer
Version submitted: v0.0.4.9110
Editor: @anadiedrichs
Reviewer 1: @mvickm
Reviewer 2: @brunj7
Archive: TBD
Version accepted: TBD

---

• Paste the full DESCRIPTION file inside a code block below:

Package: parzer
Type: Package
Title: Parse Coordinates
Description: Parse Coordinates.
Version: 0.0.4.9110
Authors@R: c(
		person("Scott", "Chamberlain", role = c("aut", "cre"),
            email = "sckott@protonmail.com")
	)
License: MIT + file LICENSE
URL: https://github.com/ropenscilabs/parzer
BugReports: https://github.com/ropenscilabs/parzer/issues
Imports:
    Rcpp (>= 1.0.2)
Suggests:
    roxygen2 (>= 6.1.1),
    testthat,
    randgeo,
    knitr,
    rmarkdown
LinkingTo: Rcpp
SystemRequirements: C++11
VignetteBuilder: knitr
Roxygen: list(markdown = TRUE)
Encoding: UTF-8
RoxygenNote: 6.1.1

Scope

• Please indicate which category or categories from our package fit policies this package falls under: (Please check an appropriate box below. If you are unsure, we suggest you make a pre-submission inquiry.):

  • data retrieval
  • data extraction
  • database access
  • data munging
  • data deposition
  • reproducibility
  • geospatial data
  • text analysis

• Explain how and why the package falls under these categories (briefly, 1-2 sentences):

parzer fits most closely with the description "manipulating geospatial data" within the geospatial category - b/c it parses many variation of lat/lat coordinates.

• Who is the target audience and what are scientific applications of this package?

People working with spatial data, either in academia, government, tech, etc.

• Are there other R packages that accomplish the same thing? If so, how does yours differ or meet our criteria for best-in-category?

Not that I know of

• If you made a pre-submission enquiry, please paste the link to the corresponding issue, forum post, or other discussion, or @tag the editor you contacted.

N/A

Technical checks

Confirm each of the following by checking the box. This package:

• does not violate the Terms of Service of any service it interacts with.
• has a CRAN and OSI accepted license.
• contains a README with instructions for installing the development version.
• includes documentation with examples for all functions.
• contains a vignette with examples of its essential functions and uses.
• has a test suite.
• has continuous integration, including reporting of test coverage using services such as Travis CI, Coveralls and/or CodeCov.

Publication options

• Do you intend for this package to go on CRAN?
• Do you wish to automatically submit to the Journal of Open Source Software? If so:

JOSS Options

• The package has an obvious research application according to JOSS's definition.
  • The package contains a paper.md matching JOSS's requirements with a high-level description in the package root or in inst/.
  • The package is deposited in a long-term repository with the DOI:
  • (Do not submit your package separately to JOSS)

• Do you wish to submit an Applications Article about your package to Methods in Ecology and Evolution? If so:

MEE Options

• 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)
• (Scope: Do consider MEE's Aims and Scope 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

• I agree to abide by rOpenSci's Code of Conduct during the review process and in maintaining my package should it be accepted.

[melvidoni]

Due to conflicts of interest, I am in the search for an external editor that can take up on this one. Please, be patient with me.

[sckott]

thanks!

[melvidoni]

Hello @sckott! @anadiedrichs will be your editor! Good luck to both of you, and thanks @anadiedrichs for taking up this package review.

[anadiedrichs]

Editor checks:

• Fit: The package meets criteria for fit and overlap
• Automated tests: Package has a testing suite and is tested via Travis-CI or another CI service.
• License: The package has a CRAN or OSI accepted license
• 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

Hello @sckott , thanks for submitting to rOpenSci. I'll be your handling editor.

The following is the output of goodpractice::gp().

It is good practice to

  ✖ write unit tests for all functions, and all package code in general. 93% of code lines are covered by test cases.

    R/dms-fxns.R:6:NA
    R/parse_lat.R:62:NA
    R/parse_lon.R:67:NA
    R/zzz.R:20:NA

  ✖ fix this R CMD check ERROR: Package suggested but not available:
    ‘randgeo’ The suggested packages are required for a complete check. Checking can be attempted without them by setting the environment variable
    _R_CHECK_FORCE_SUGGESTS_ to a false value. See section ‘The DESCRIPTION file’ in the ‘Writing R Extensions’ manual.

Output of covr::package_coverage()

covr::package_coverage()
parzer Coverage: 93.33%
R/parse_lat.R: 75.00%
R/parse_lon.R: 75.00%
R/zzz.R: 88.89%
R/dms-fxns.R: 96.55%
R/parse_hemisphere.R: 100.00%
R/parse_lat_lon.R: 100.00%
R/parse_parts.R: 100.00%

Please, fix your DESCRIPTION file. Take a look at all of this, and let me know once it is done so that I can check again.

It's my first time as an invited editor. @melvidoni: should the package tests code coverage be 100%? 93 % of coverage is an excellent start point. If it isn't, can I start looking for reviewers if everything is fixed?

---

[melvidoni]

Hey @anadiedrichs the % of test is relative to the package, but 93% is great in my personal opinion. Yes, you can start looking for reviewers!

[anadiedrichs]

@sckott: have you already fixed the DESCRIPTION file ?

[sckott]

@anadiedrichs i think it's okay,. correct me if im wrong, but i think that warning is okay b/c you didn't have that package (randgeo) installed on your machine, if you install that pkg and try again that warning should go away

[anadiedrichs]

Hi @sckott, you are right. Consider checking your DESCRIPTION file in case you plan later to submit to CRAN to avoid problems with this issue.
I'm still seeking reviewers.