Group 20 - gradecalculatorr

[shlrley]

---

name: gradecalculatorr
about: A python package to help you calculate your grade for a course, and what grade you need on an assignment to obtain a target overall course grade.

---

Submitting Author Name: Chen Lin, Edward Yukun Zhang, Shirley Zhang
Submitting Author Github Handle: @CChCheChen@yukunzGIT@shlrley
Repository: https://github.com/UBC-MDS/gradecalculatorr
Version submitted: v.0.2.0
Submission type: Standard
Editor: TBD
Reviewers: Stephen Zaiatc, Elena Ganacheva, Samson Bakos

Archive: TBD
Version accepted: TBD
Language: en

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

Package: gradecalculatorr
Title: Calculates Grades For a Course
Version: 0.0.0.9000
Authors@R: 
    c(person("Edward Yukun", "Zhang", , "[email protected]", role = c("aut"),
           comment = c(ORCID = "YOUR-ORCID-ID")),
      person("Chen", "Lin", , "[email protected]", role = c("aut"),
           comment = c(ORCID = "YOUR-ORCID-ID")),
      person("Shirley", "Zhang", , "[email protected]", role = c("aut", "cre"),
           comment = c(ORCID = "YOUR-ORCID-ID")))
Description: This python package calculates grades for a course and 
    allows users to customize their own course information with self-defined course component names, to update grades for different course components,
    and even understand how well the final exam needs to be to pass the course or achieve a target final grade.
License: MIT + file LICENSE
Encoding: UTF-8
Roxygen: list(markdown = TRUE)
RoxygenNote: 7.2.3
Config/testthat/edition: 3
URL: https://github.com/yukunzGIT/gradecalculatorr
BugReports: https://github.com/yukunzGIT/gradecalculatorr/issues
Imports: 
    devtools,
    readr,
    testthat,
    tidyr,
    utils

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
  • data munging
  • data deposition
  • data validation and testing
  • workflow automation
  • version control
  • citation management and bibliometrics
  • scientific software wrappers
  • field and lab reproducibility tools
  • database software bindings
  • geospatial data
  • text analysis

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

  • We chose data deposition as our package asks the user to give us data, which we format into .csv files.
  • However, our package does not fit perfectly into any of the above categories. Instead, we propose that our package falls under education, which is a category provided within the Python packages category list.

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

  • Our target audience is students who would like to have an easy way to keep track of their grades for their courses, and be able to calculate the grades needed for assignments in order to obtain their goal final course grade.
  • Our package does not have many scientific applications, as it is mainly intended for an individual's personal use. However, one could use it to generate data which could be used to create visualizations/look at trends (i.e looking at a student's assignment grades over time).

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

  • No, there do not appear to be any other R packages that accomplish something similar.

• (If applicable) Does your package comply with our guidance around Ethics, Data Privacy and Human Subjects Research?

  • N/A

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

  • N/A

• Explain reasons for any pkgcheck items which your package is unable to pass.

  • N/A

Technical checks

Confirm each of the following by checking the box.

• I have read the rOpenSci packaging guide.
• I have read the author guide and I expect to maintain this package for at least 2 years or to find a replacement.

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, created with roxygen2.
• contains a vignette with examples of its essential functions and uses.
• has a test suite.
• has continuous integration, including reporting of test coverage.

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

• 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.

[samson-bakos]

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

• Briefly describe any working relationship you have (had) with the package authors.
• 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 README
• Installation instructions: for the development version of package and any non-standard dependencies in README
• Vignette(s): demonstrating major functionality that runs successfully locally

• Link to pkgdown pages site with rendered version would be helpful
• Vignette narrative could be expanded beyond what is present in the readme (i.e. with some explanation of where exactly this package is useful)

• Function Documentation: for all exported functions
• Examples: (that run successfully locally) for all exported functions
• Community guidelines: including contribution guidelines in the README or CONTRIBUTING, and DESCRIPTION with URL, BugReports and Maintainer (which may be autogenerated via Authors@R).

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: Unit tests cover essential functions of the package and a reasonable range of inputs and conditions. All tests pass on the local machine.

• file paths work for R on Mac

• Packaging guidelines: The package conforms to the rOpenSci packaging guidelines.

Estimated hours spent reviewing: ~1hr

• Should the author(s) deem it appropriate, I agree to be acknowledged as a package reviewer ("rev" role) in the package DESCRIPTION file.

---

Review Comments

• Solid package with strong functionality
• Everything works as expected, nothing major to correct. Only minor fixes below
• Interesting that the tests pass for the R version on Mac but not the Py version, could the structure of the Py tests be changed?
• Add a link to ReadMe to the pkgdown site to view vignettes more easily -- I wasn't able to access pkgdown site, I tried using the URL directly
• Vignette narrative could be expanded beyond what is present in the readme (i.e. with some explanation of where exactly this package is useful)
• Contributing could be expanded (possibly to its own file as its only in readme)

[elenagan]

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

• Briefly describe any working relationship you have (had) with the package authors.
• 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 README
• Installation instructions: for the development version of package and any non-standard dependencies in README
• Vignette(s): demonstrating major functionality that runs successfully locally
• Function Documentation: for all exported functions
• Examples: (that run successfully locally) for all exported functions
• Community guidelines: including contribution guidelines in the README or CONTRIBUTING, and DESCRIPTION with URL, BugReports and Maintainer (which may be autogenerated via Authors@R).

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: Unit tests cover essential functions of the package and a reasonable range of inputs and conditions. All tests pass on the local machine.
• Packaging guidelines: The package conforms to the rOpenSci packaging guidelines.

Estimated hours spent reviewing:

• Should the author(s) deem it appropriate, I agree to be acknowledged as a package reviewer ("rev" role) in the package DESCRIPTION file.

---

Review Comments

• An interesting package with useful yet easy-to-use functionality
• I could not find a link to the pkgdown site
• It would be great to be able to manipulate the data in R without having to work off a csv
• Maybe add functionality to combine courses into one document
• It's good that user defined course names don't have limitations according to the documentation

[stepanz25]

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

• Briefly describe any working relationship you have (had) with the package authors.
• 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 README
• Installation instructions: for the development version of package and any non-standard dependencies in README
• Vignette(s): demonstrating major functionality that runs successfully locally
• Function Documentation: for all exported functions
• Examples: (that run successfully locally) for all exported functions
• Community guidelines: including contribution guidelines in the README or CONTRIBUTING, and DESCRIPTION with URL, BugReports and Maintainer (which may be autogenerated via Authors@R).

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: Unit tests cover essential functions of the package and a reasonable range of inputs and conditions. All tests pass on the local machine.
• Packaging guidelines: The package conforms to the rOpenSci packaging guidelines.

Estimated hours spent reviewing: 2 hours

• Should the author(s) deem it appropriate, I agree to be acknowledged as a package reviewer ("rev" role) in the package DESCRIPTION file.

---

Review Comments

I had the pleasure to review this package. The use case is very relevant to students, and overall, the package did what it claims to do. There was sufficient documentation and the scripts were easy to comprehend. Well done!

1. Good error management. Accepts unlimited components and ensures that their total weight = 100. Also, the output is nicely formatted in a table format.
2. I could not allocate the pkgdown page, so it would be nice to have linked to your package so that anyone could easily access the information about the package not necessarily GitHub users only.
3. It would be great if you could put a short summary what your project is about in the "About" section of your package.
4. In predict_final.R, the if statement that "Check if all assignment weight sum up to 100%" may never be entered as the sum the assignment weights are already checked in the construct_course.R function.
5. Suggestion: try to keep the package name consistent. I have seen that some content of your R package was borrowed from analogous Python package but the package name wasn't changed. It would probably confuse the user at first since they may not be aware of the second package existence. You might also want to aknowledge that the analogous Python package exist as well.
6. I found that the structure of the package was a little bit confusing, it might be worth looking into re-organizing a little bit especially your testthat directory.