Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Generate review rOpenSci metadata #23

Open
cboettig opened this issue Jul 20, 2017 · 8 comments
Open

Generate review rOpenSci metadata #23

cboettig opened this issue Jul 20, 2017 · 8 comments
Assignees
@maelle
Milestone
0.2.0 release

Comments

@cboettig
Copy link
Member

@noamross Really like your suggestion about including a bit more about the review. Trying to think how best to do this using existing vocabularies, since it makes interoperability of data so much easier.

"review":  {
   "@type": "Review",
   "url": "https://github.com/ropensci/onboarding/issues/130",
   "provider": "http://ropensci.org"
                  }

I'm not sure what the right field is to indicate the status of the review (e.g. the in review, accepted etc), maybe status would be the term? Note that http://schema.org/Review defines the property reviewRating but that's obviously not the context we really have in mind here.

I've indicated ropensci as the provider (could be more verbose and indicate ropensci is an organization), note that it would be natural to include the review author & editor here too, (not clear if you'd list all, and of course that would be harder to scrape from the svg badge...)

Wanted to cc @mfenner on this too, Martin, any thoughts at a common vocabulary for describing reviews of scholarly works? Has this come up at all on your end?
This was referenced Feb 7, 2018
Closed
Closed
@maelle maelle mentioned this issue Apr 5, 2018
Closed
@maelle
Copy link
Member

maelle commented Apr 11, 2018

happy to work on this @cboettig, if you assign it to me I could write the few lines of code necessary to scrape the badge :-)

@maelle maelle added this to the 0.1.6 release milestone Apr 18, 2018
@maelle maelle self-assigned this Apr 18, 2018
@maelle
Copy link
Member

maelle commented Apr 18, 2018

Easiest solution = no review property as long as the package is only under review

@maelle
Copy link
Member

maelle commented Apr 18, 2018

and under review = issue open

@maelle maelle mentioned this issue Apr 18, 2018
Open
maelle pushed a commit that referenced this issue Apr 18, 2018
generate review metadata cf #23
ce93589
@maelle
Copy link
Member

maelle commented Apr 18, 2018

Cf #93

Quite minimal implementation to be reviewed (😁 ) by you @cboettig .

  • Cf Review info in codemeta.json software-review-meta#49 for discussion of what to add for rOpenSci reviews

  • Other functions could be used e.g. for JOSS reviews.

  • If both rOpenSci and JOSS reviews are detected there could be "conflicts" since a package can be reviewed by both.

@maelle
Copy link
Member

maelle commented Apr 23, 2018

Given that you seemed happy with #93 @cboettig I'll change the milestone of that issue, since the minimal part for next release was done but the rest would be cool to have too, in particular list of reviewers.

@maelle maelle modified the milestones: 0.1.6 release, 0.2.0 release Apr 23, 2018
cboettig pushed a commit that referenced this issue Apr 23, 2018
@maelle @cboettig
0.1.6 work (#89)
4ab555a 
* add pre-commit hook for DESCRIPTION vs codemeta.json

* oops had forgotten the dependencies 😱

* had also forgotten to import the function

* puts the code in the right place and documents what the first call to write_codemeta will do

* add rOpenSci and myself as authors

* remove MIT licence

* change licence

* add that the code is GPL-3

* replaces devtools with usethis where possible

* mostly French snobism 😉

* add uses_git origin

* cf #62

* #62

* only adds hook once!

* start using desc cf #41

* various fixes

* better example?

* document

* removes reference to deleted function

* cf #63

* cf #64, parses more possible roles

* updates codemeta.json in particular more people/orgs appear

* start work on opinions cf #76

* document

* oops

* oops again

* gives opinion when verbose=TRUE and otherwise just uses robust code

* cleans up tests

* more tests of plain authors&maintainer

* work on tests

* corrects documentation

* better if the pkg exists 😁

* update codemeta

* adds a message to get a devtools release question

* fix?

* new try

* removes httr dependency in favor of crul cf #83

* checks URLs in DESCRIPTION cf #68

* oops fixes test

* uses dev version of jsonld

* adds coercion to character to repair bug introduced by jsonld new version cf #88

* clean up cache

* yay encoding

* close #84 by deleting now useless licences.R file

* appveyor

* oh, Appveyor

* start filling NEWS.md

* better checks when several URLs

* more space

* generate review metadata cf #23

* oops

* cf #63

* @jeroen said that this might help 🙏

* thanks again @jeroen

* test on patched R version

* CRAN and Bioconductor links for dependencies cf #81

* add tests of dependencies URL creation

* add canonic URL for the package itself cf #81

* borrows jsonlite code cf #84

* makes it a bit more specific

* badge parsing cf #130

* uses badge parsing function in guess_metadata

* opinions about README cf 98

* add check of provider cf #81

* oops

* oops again

* R CMD Check NOTEs

* oops

* update contributor list cf #95

* several relatedLinks cf #99

* add the URL only once

* oops repairs test

* update NEWS

* add ability to provide relatedLink for packages installed from CRAN or Bioconductor

* add link to commit if available

* only one maintainer currently cf #109

* oops this was wrong!

* mmmh there was a mistake here

* Travis fix?

* remotes cf #96

* Travis fix?

* export the badge extraction function cf #107 and update docs and correct a test

* status as URL cf #102

* now one can extract lifecycle status

* not only Travis CI as contIntegration cf #111

* update NEWs

* update NEWS

* repairs handling of additional terms cf #112 and adds corresponding test

* correct test
@maelle
Copy link
Member

maelle commented Jul 2, 2018

I wrote in a comment above that there'd be a conflict if a package were reviewed by both rOpenSci and JOSS which is wrong since the review term can be a list.

@maelle maelle mentioned this issue Jul 2, 2018
Closed
@maelle maelle changed the title Generate review metadata Generate review rOpenSci metadata Jul 2, 2018
This was referenced Jul 2, 2018
Open
Closed
@karthik
Copy link
Member

karthik commented Jul 2, 2018

I wrote in a comment above that there'd be a conflict if a package were reviewed by both rOpenSci and JOSS which is wrong since the review term can be a list.

Packages reviewed at rOpenSci are not reviewed a second time at JOSS.

@maelle
Copy link
Member

maelle commented Jul 2, 2018

👍

Actually when working on #176 I need to make sure not to count the review twice when there are both an rOpenSci and a JOSS badges.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@maelle maelle

Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
0.2.0 release
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@karthik @cboettig @maelle