mbquartR: Finding Manitoba Quarter Sections #658
Comments
|
Thanks for submitting to rOpenSci, our editors and @ropensci-review-bot will reply soon. Type |
|
🚀 Editor check started 👋 |
Checks for mbquartR (v0.0.0.9000)git hash: 49820566
Package License: MIT + file LICENSE 1. Package DependenciesDetails of Package Dependency Usage (click to open)
The table below tallies all function calls to all packages ('ncalls'), both internal (r-base + recommended, along with the package itself), and external (imported and suggested packages). 'NA' values indicate packages to which no identified calls to R functions could be found. Note that these results are generated by an automated code-tagging system which may not be entirely accurate.
Click below for tallies of functions used in each package. Locations of each call within this package may be generated locally by running 's <- pkgstats::pkgstats(<path/to/repo>)', and examining the 'external_calls' table. basec (7), getOption (2), by (1), curlGetHeaders (1), force (1), paste0 (1), search (1), url (1) mbquartRcache_file (3), cache_dir (2), cache_load (2), centroid (2), cache_check (1), cache_dl (1), closest_centoid (1), map_quarter (1), quarters_dl (1), search_coord (1) dplyrmutate (2), select (2), (1), join_by (1), last_col (1), rename (1), right_join (1) sfst_as_sf (5), st_transform (2) utilsdata (2), menu (2) readrread_csv (2) statsdist (2) tibblerowid_to_column (1), tibble (1) mapviewmapview (1) purrrmap2 (1) NOTE: Some imported packages appear to have no associated function calls; please ensure with author that these 'Imports' are listed appropriately. 2. Statistical PropertiesThis package features some noteworthy statistical properties which may need to be clarified by a handling editor prior to progressing. Details of statistical properties (click to open)
The package has:
Statistical properties of package structure as distributional percentiles in relation to all current CRAN packages
All parameters are explained as tooltips in the locally-rendered HTML version of this report generated by the The final measure (
2a. Network visualisationClick to see the interactive network visualisation of calls between objects in package 3.
|
| id | name | conclusion | sha | run_number | date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10967106383 | pages build and deployment | success | 284672 | 9 | 2024-09-20 |
| 10967082710 | pkgcheck | success | 498205 | 3 | 2024-09-20 |
| 10967082712 | pkgdown | success | 498205 | 10 | 2024-09-20 |
| 10967082708 | R-CMD-check | success | 498205 | 17 | 2024-09-20 |
| 10967082707 | test-coverage | success | 498205 | 17 | 2024-09-20 |
3b. goodpractice results
R CMD check with rcmdcheck
rcmdcheck found no errors, warnings, or notes
Test coverage with covr
Package coverage: 87.97
Cyclocomplexity with cyclocomp
No functions have cyclocomplexity >= 15
Static code analyses with lintr
lintr found the following 1 potential issues:
| message | number of times |
|---|---|
| Avoid library() and require() calls in packages | 1 |
Package Versions
| package | version |
|---|---|
| pkgstats | 0.1.6.17 |
| pkgcheck | 0.1.2.58 |
Editor-in-Chief Instructions:
This package is in top shape and may be passed on to a handling editor
|
Hi @alex-koiter, the rOpenSci bot says this is all good, but when I run checks locally, I get an error. > devtools::check()
══ Documenting ════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ℹ Installed roxygen2 version (7.3.2) doesn't match required (7.3.1)
✖ `check()` will not re-document this package
══ Building ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Setting env vars:
• CFLAGS : -Wall -pedantic -fdiagnostics-color=always
• CXXFLAGS : -Wall -pedantic -fdiagnostics-color=always
• CXX11FLAGS: -Wall -pedantic -fdiagnostics-color=always
• CXX14FLAGS: -Wall -pedantic -fdiagnostics-color=always
• CXX17FLAGS: -Wall -pedantic -fdiagnostics-color=always
• CXX20FLAGS: -Wall -pedantic -fdiagnostics-color=always
── R CMD build ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
✔ checking for file ‘/Users/adamsparks/tmp/mbquartR/DESCRIPTION’ ...
─ preparing ‘mbquartR’:
✔ checking DESCRIPTION meta-information ...
─ installing the package to build vignettes
E creating vignettes (1.5s)
--- re-building ‘mbquartR.Rmd’ using rmarkdown
Quitting from lines 69-71 [example] (mbquartR.Rmd)
Error: processing vignette 'mbquartR.Rmd' failed with diagnostics:
Data doesn't exist, please download with `quarters_dl()` first
--- failed re-building ‘mbquartR.Rmd’
SUMMARY: processing the following file failed:
‘mbquartR.Rmd’
Error: Vignette re-building failed.
Execution halted
Error:
! ! System command 'R' failed
Show TracebackPlease ignore the roxygen2 comment, I'm concerned about the Error creating vignettes. |
|
Thanks @adamhsparks! The issue was that the vignette needed to access data that hadn't been downloaded yet. I have now created some sample data that the vignette uses. Also found some additional typos and made a few other small changes. It should work now. |
|
Looks good, @alex-koiter. Thanks, I'll proceed from here. |
|
@ropensci-review-bot assign @jhollist as editor |
|
Assigned! @jhollist is now the editor |
|
@alex-koiter I will take some time today/tomorrow to dig into this a bit and will get back to you with any suggestions. Looking forward to the review process! |
|
@alex-koiter I am just now starting to look at this (apologies!!) I still get the the same error as @adamhsparks with the vignette build. I have cloned and attempted to build https://github.com/alex-koiter/mbquartR and get the error. Perhaps the fix wasn't pushed? Also I see no documentation on your non-exported functions (Statistical Properties in #658 (comment)). While not technically required, it would be an easy area of improvement to add documentation on these non-exported functions. |
|
@jhollist It turns out that I only partially resolved the issue (or fixed a different one). I have resolved the error so you should be able to clone and build the package now. I will take me a few days to get the documentation for the internal functions completed and I will let you know once that is done. |
|
And FYI, check runs now on my machine! I did see this: ─ checking examples ... [43s] OK (43.4s)
|
|
@jhollist The internal function documentation is now complete. As for the run time, I think this may be an artifact of how the functions are written. This is where the reviewers may be able to provide some suggestions. |
|
@alex-koiter Thanks! Looks good on my end. Will start looking for reviewers now. |
|
@ropensci-review-bot assign @sheilasaia as reviewer |
|
@sheilasaia added to the reviewers list. Review due date is 2024-11-29. Thanks @sheilasaia for accepting to review! Please refer to our reviewer guide. rOpenSci’s community is our best asset. We aim for reviews to be open, non-adversarial, and focused on improving software quality. Be respectful and kind! See our reviewers guide and code of conduct for more. |
|
@sheilasaia: If you haven't done so, please fill this form for us to update our reviewers records. |
|
@ropensci-review-bot assign @EmilyMarkowitz-NOAA as reviewer |
|
@EmilyMarkowitz-NOAA added to the reviewers list. Review due date is 2024-12-11. Thanks @EmilyMarkowitz-NOAA for accepting to review! Please refer to our reviewer guide. rOpenSci’s community is our best asset. We aim for reviews to be open, non-adversarial, and focused on improving software quality. Be respectful and kind! See our reviewers guide and code of conduct for more. |
|
@EmilyMarkowitz-NOAA: If you haven't done so, please fill this form for us to update our reviewers records. |
|
📆 @sheilasaia you have 2 days left before the due date for your review (2024-11-29). |
|
Sorry that I'm a couple of days late in submitting my review. I blame the recent US holidays. 😄 Package ReviewPlease check off boxes as applicable, and elaborate in comments below. Your review is not limited to these topics, as described in the reviewer guide
DocumentationThe package includes all the following forms of documentation:
Additional notes: Please see my comments below for more info on the community guidelines. Functionality
Additional notes: I was having trouble using the Estimated hours spent reviewing: 3
That's not necessary, but thank you for asking. Review CommentsI was able to install the R package, download the dataset using Overall, I thought the package worked well and was well documented. While the application has a very specific audience, it makes sense to me that this would be useful for people working on geospatial projects in the the Manitoba region. Especially, for folks trying to automate the identification of Manitoba quarters. I had a few suggestions which I describe generally below and then provide detailed comments on below. First, I recommend the author include more details in the package README and website introduction page on the use cases and intended users. The information provided in the rOpenSci package application was very helpful and could be repeated here. In a similar vain, it would be great to have more information in the package README and website about the Manitoba quarter sections themselves. Can the author provide an overview with this and show a map of all the sections in the introduction of this package? I'm guessing they are polygons used to denote various regions of Manitoba. More information on this would be helpful. Second, there are a few cases where the error messages could be revised to provide more information to the user. I gave some suggestions for this in the detailed comments below. Third, I see only one person listed as a maintainer on this package. Is there anyone else that can also be listed for redundancy? How often do the Manitoba sections get updated? If not very frequently, then I understand this might not be a priority, but thought it might be an important to ask about how this would be maintained into the future. The author doesn't include a CONTRIBUTING.md file in the R package on GitHub to explain how folks can submit issues or suggest addtional features, which is something that I recommend adding and is part of the community guidelines. Thanks for the opportunity to review this interesting new R package and please reach out if you have any follow up questions or need any further clarification! Detailed Comments:
My R session info: Devtools check output: Test check output: |
|
📆 @EmilyMarkowitz-NOAA you have 2 days left before the due date for your review (2024-12-11). |
Package ReviewPlease check off boxes as applicable, and elaborate in comments below. Your review is not limited to these topics, as described in the reviewer guide
DocumentationThe package includes all the following forms of documentation:
Functionality
Estimated hours spent reviewing: 3
No need, but thanks for offering. Review CommentsIn addition to agreeing with the first reviewer's comments, I have a few to add, which I've mostly left in the numbered bullets below. In general, and similarly to the other reviewer, I was able to install the R package, run the functions as expected, thought the package worked well and was well documented. Though this R Package has a very specific audience, it sounds like it will be an easy and helpful too for them. I share similar sentiments that the README could include more details and context and had the same errors with the test checks that the other reviewer had. Thanks for the opportunity to review and let me know if you have any questions! This is my first time reviewing an R package for ROpenSci, so please let me know if there is anything I missed or forgot to cover. Good luck, and hope this helps! Thanks for making a package to help the folks of Manitoba!
A. "search_coord() returns dataframe" B. "search_legal() returns dataframe Check runsR Session Info
Clean and install: successDevtools output: 1 error (from test checks)
Test checks: 2 errors
|
|
@sheilasaia and @EmilyMarkowitz-NOAA Thank you so much for your reviews! You are all set for now, but once @alex-koiter responds I will ask you to take a look at those responses and let me know if your comments were adequately addressed. Also, keep a rough tally of the time you spent on the review and follow-ups. We like to keep track of this. @alex-koiter Please take a look at these reviews, ask any questions that arise, and work on the revisions. If there is anything I can do to help, just let me know. Thanks again all! |
jhollist
added
4/review(s)-in-awaiting-changes
and removed
3/reviewer(s)-assigned
labels
|
Thanks to @sheilasaia and @EmilyMarkowitz-NOAA for taking the time to review my package. Some good suggestions to implement. I will start working on this and if I have any questions or need clarification I will let you know. |
|
@jhollist I am also interested in submitting to JOSS. I know there is an opportunity to combine the rOpenSci review with the JOSS review process, is there anything in particular I should be aware of moving forward. I am currently preparing the paper. |
|
@alex-koiter I am not sure about the details on JOSS submission. let me dig and get back to you. |
|
@alex-koiter A bit here on it: https://devguide.ropensci.org/softwarereview_author.html#preparing-for-submission. I think we keep on with the track we are going on. The JOSS side will happen after rOpenSci review. The current EiC may coordinate this process. I will find out. In short, JOSS will make their own determination on scope and if it is in scope you will submit your paper.md for review with JOSS. The package will not need a separate review. |
|
@alex-koiter It looks like all you will need to do is specify that the package been reviewed by rOpenSci during the pre-submisison phase with JOSS. Here is an example issue: openjournals/joss-reviews#6163 (comment) |
Submitting Author Name: Alexander Koiter
Due date for @sheilasaia: 2024-11-29Submitting Author Github Handle: @alex-koiter
Other Package Authors Github handles: (comma separated, delete if none)
Repository: https://github.com/alex-koiter/mbquartR
Version submitted: 0.0.0.9000
Submission type: Standard
Editor: @jhollist
Reviewers: @sheilasaia, @EmilyMarkowitz-NOAA
Due date for @EmilyMarkowitz-NOAA: 2024-12-11
Archive: TBD
Version accepted: TBD
Language: en
Package: mbquartR
Title: Finding Manitoba Quarter Sections
Version: 0.0.0.9000
Authors@R:
person("Alex", "Koiter", , "[email protected]", role = c("aut", "cre"),
comment = c(ORCID = "0000-0002-9355-9561"))
Description: This package has three main functions: 1) find the coordinates of a quarter sections given the legal land description (e.g., "NE-11-33-29W"); 2) find the legal land description using coordinates (lat and long); and 3) plot these points on a map.
License: MIT + file LICENSE
URL: http://alexkoiter.ca/mbquartR/, https://github.com/alex-koiter/mbquartR
BugReports: https://github.com/alex-koiter/mbquartR/issues
Encoding: UTF-8
Roxygen: list(markdown = TRUE)
RoxygenNote: 7.3.1
Suggests:
testthat (>= 3.0.0),
curl (>= 5.2.1),
knitr,
rmarkdown
Config/testthat/edition: 3
Imports:
dplyr (>= 1.1.4),
purrr (>= 1.0.2),
sf (>= 1.0.16),
tibble (>= 3.2.1),
tidyr (>= 1.3.1),
stringr (>= 1.5.1),
units (>= 0.8.5),
mapview (>= 2.11.2),
readr (>= 2.1.4),
crayon (>= 1.5.2),
rlang
VignetteBuilder: knitr
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.):
Explain how and why the package falls under these categories (briefly, 1-2 sentences):
This package enables users to download the Manitoba Original Survey Legal Descriptions data from the Manitoba government geoportal. It includes functions that allow users to easily search for parcels of land (i.e., quarter sections) by either the legal land description or by coordinates and plot them on an interactive map.
The target audience are those who work with geospatial data in Manitoba, particularly those who are working with rural or farm parcels of land where the legal land description is commonly used as the method of identifying the location. Also anyone who needs to quickly go back and forth between geographic coordinates and the legal land description. Currently, there are a few web-based tools (https://geoportal.gov.mb.ca/datasets/11fa11f9015b45438d6493dcb3d8071c/, https://www.masc.mb.ca/masc.nsf/land_parcel_info.html, https://legallandconverter.com/p4.html) that allow users to locate land parcels but do not allow for batch processing, do not return coordinates, and/or are fee based. Being able to convert back and forth is also helpful for scientist preparing outreach materials.
No
NA. This package provides access to publicly available data.
#649
pkgcheckitems which your package is unable to pass.pkgcheckpasses fully with github actions but fails locally because it doesn't think I have CI (but I do).Technical checks
Confirm each of the following by checking the box.
This package:
Publication options
Do you intend for this package to go on CRAN?
Do you intend for this package to go on Bioconductor?
Do you wish to submit an Applications Article about your package to Methods in Ecology and Evolution? If so:
MEE Options
Code of conduct
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: