Peer Review - Prabuddha Tamhane - PAT0216

[PAT0216]

Package Review

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

• 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).

Documentation

The package includes all the following forms of documentation:

• A statement of need clearly stating problems the software is designed to solve and its target audience in the README file.
• Installation instructions: for the development version of the package and any non-standard dependencies in README.
• Short quickstart tutorials demonstrating significant functionality that successfully runs locally.
• Function Documentation: for all user-facing functions.
• Examples for all user-facing functions.
• Community guidelines including contribution guidelines in the README or CONTRIBUTING.
• Metadata including author(s), author e-mail(s), a URL, and any other relevant metadata, for example, in a pyproject.toml file or elsewhere.

Readme file requirements
The package meets the readme requirements below:

• Package has a README.md file in the root directory.

The README should include, from top to bottom:

• The package name
• Badges for:
  • Continuous integration and test coverage,
  • Docs building (if you have a documentation website),
  • Python versions supported,
  • Current package version (on PyPI / Conda).

NOTE: If the README has many more badges, you might want to consider using a table for badges: see this example. Such a table should be wider than high. A badge for pyOpenSci peer review will be provided when the package is accepted.

• Short description of package goals.
• Package installation instructions
• Any additional setup required to use the package (authentication tokens, etc.)
• Descriptive links to all vignettes. If the package is small, there may only be a need for one vignette which could be placed in the README.md file.
  • Brief demonstration of package usage (as it makes sense - links to vignettes could also suffice here if package description is clear)
• Link to your documentation website.
• If applicable, how the package compares to other similar packages and/or how it relates to other packages in the scientific ecosystem.
• Citation information

Usability

Reviewers are encouraged to submit suggestions (or pull requests) that will improve the usability of the package as a whole.
The package structure should follow the general community best practices. In general, please consider whether:

• Package documentation is clear and easy to find and use.
• The need for the package is clear
• All functions have documentation and associated examples for use
• The package is easy to install

Functionality

• Installation: Installation succeeds as documented.
• Functionality: Any functional claims of the software been confirmed.
• Performance: Any performance claims of the software been confirmed.
• Automated tests:
  • All tests pass on the reviewer's local machine for the package version submitted by the author. Ideally this should be a tagged version making it easy for reviewers to install.
  • Tests cover essential functions of the package and a reasonable range of inputs and conditions.
• Continuous Integration: Has continuous integration setup (We suggest using Github actions but any CI platform is acceptable for review)
• Packaging guidelines: The package conforms to the pyOpenSci packaging guidelines.
  A few notable highlights to look at:
  • Package supports modern versions of Python and not End of life versions.
  • Code format is standard throughout package and follows PEP 8 guidelines (CI tests for linting pass)

For packages also submitting to JOSS

• The package has an obvious research application according to JOSS's definition in their submission requirements.

Note: Be sure to check this carefully, as JOSS's submission requirements and scope differ from pyOpenSci's in terms of what types of packages are accepted.

The package contains a paper.md matching JOSS's requirements with:

• A short summary describing the high-level functionality of the software
• Authors: A list of authors with their affiliations
• A statement of need clearly stating problems the software is designed to solve and its target audience.
• References: With DOIs for all those that have one (e.g. papers, datasets, software).

Final approval (post-review)

• The author has responded to my review and made changes to my satisfaction. I recommend approving this package.

Estimated hours spent reviewing:

---

Review Comments

• The README looks great, but it's missing those little badges at the top (like for the build status or Python version). It's really helpful to add those so users can quickly see that the project is healthy and active.
• The instruction for pip install 'package-name' doesn't work , because the package isn't published to PyPI, that can be fixed easily by finding the install link to your TestPyPI.
• I noticed in the amount_to_transfer function that you are using standard float numbers for the money math. This can sometimes cause weird rounding errors with cents. It might be safer to switch to using Python's Decimal type to keep the currency precise.
• Your github pages link, directly goes to the contribution guidelines, instead of package - function information, which you can do so by redirecting instead to a your reference webpage.
• I really liked how detailed your docstrings are! You followed the NumPy style perfectly, which makes it super easy to understand what functions like amount_to_transfer do just by reading the code. Great job there.