Peer Review - Amanpreet Binepal

[amanbinepal]

Package Review

• 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:

1.5 hours

Review Comments

After testing the package, I was able to create the environment on my local machine and was able to use all the functions within the package without any issues. The installation instructions were very clear and easy to follow.

Written Feedback

Feedback 1:

• Something that could be added is a stronger reason of why people should use your package and what the package has to offer compared to other similar packages out there.

Feedback 2:

• Adding more in depth examples in the README like the expected output of each function would make it easier for a user to use the package right away without having to refer to the documentation website.

Feedback 3:

• Adding more context for how this package can be used would give users a better idea of how they can use this package in their own projects. Add a demo project that has used this package to showcase the effectiveness of the package.

Feedback 4:

• Adding more in depth descriptions for each of the functions in the Function References would make it easier for a user to determine if the function is right for their task. You could maybe add a list of use cases for each of the functions to showcase what areas the function can be used in.

Feedback 5:

• The quick usage examples are a little minimal, adding an output example for each of the quick usage examples will make it clear for the user in terms of knowing what to expect with each of the functions without having to go straight into the Function References.