In annakrystalli/pkgreviewr: rOpenSci package review project template

knitr::opts_chunk$set(
  collapse = TRUE,
  comment = "#>",
  fig.path = "man/figures/README-",
  out.width = "100%"
)

library(magrittr)

rdflib - package review

Reviewer: \@annakrystalli

Review Submitted:

r cat(sprintf("**Last updated:** %s", Sys.Date()))

---

This report contains documents the review of rOpenSci submitted package:

rdflib: ropensci/onboarding issue #169.

Package info

Description:

The Resource Description Framework, or 'RDF' is a widely used data representation model that forms the cornerstone of the Semantic Web. 'RDF' represents data as a graph rather than the familiar data table or rectangle of relational databases. The 'rdflib' package provides a friendly and concise user interface for performing common tasks on 'RDF' data, such as reading, writing and converting between the various serializations of 'RDF' data, including 'rdfxml', 'turtle', 'nquads', 'ntriples', and 'json-ld'; creating new 'RDF' graphs, and performing graph queries using 'SPARQL'. This package wraps the low level 'redland' R package which provides direct bindings to the 'redland' C library. Additionally, the package supports the newer and more developer friendly 'JSON-LD' format through the 'jsonld' package. The package interface takes inspiration from the Python 'rdflib' library.

Author: r person("Carl", "Boettiger", email = "[e-mail]", role = c("aut", "cre", "cph"), comment=c(ORCID = "0000-0002-1642-628X"))

repo url: https://github.com/cboettig/rdflib

website url: https://cboettig.github.io/rdflib/

Review info

See reviewer guidelines for further information on the rOpenSci review process.

key review checks:

• Does the code comply with general principles in the Mozilla reviewing guide?
• Does the package comply with the ROpenSci packaging guide?
• Are there improvements that could be made to the code style?
• Is there code duplication in the package that should be reduced?
• Are there user interface improvements that could be made?
• Are there performance improvements that could be made?
• Is the documentation (installation instructions/vignettes/examples/demos) clear and sufficient?

Please be respectful and kind to the authors in your reviews. The rOpenSci code of conduct is mandatory for everyone involved in our review process.

---

session info

sessionInfo()

pkg_dir <- "/private/var/folders/8p/87cqdx2s34vfvcgh04l6z72w0000gn/T/Rtmp4i9nQx/rdflib-review/../rdflib"

Test installation

test local rdflib install:

install(pkg_dir, dependencies = T, build_vignettes = T)

remove.packages("rdflib")

comments:

---

test install of rdflib from GitHub with:

devtools::install_github("cboettig/rdflib", dependencies = T, build_vignettes = T)

comments:

---

Check package integrity

run checks on rdflib source:

devtools::check(pkg_dir)

comments:

---

run tests on rdflib source:

devtools::test(pkg_dir)

comments:

---

check rdflib for goodpractice:

goodpractice::gp(pkg_dir)

comments:

---

Check package metadata files

inspect

• README

• DESCRIPTION

• NAMESPACE

spell check

devtools::spell_check(pkg_dir)

comments:

---

Check documentation

online documentation: https://cboettig.github.io/rdflib/

• Is the documentation (installation instructions/vignettes/examples/demos) clear and sufficient?

test rdflib function help files:

help(package = "rdflib")

comments:

---

test rdflib vignettes:

vignette(package = "rdflib")

comments:

---

Test functionality:

• Are there user interface improvements that could be made?
• Are there performance improvements that could be made?

library("rdflib")

exports <-ls("package:rdflib")
exports

comments:

---

Inspect code:

• Does the package comply with the ROpenSci packaging guide?
  • good function & variable naming?
  • good dependency management?
• Are there improvements that could be made to the code style?
• Is there code duplication in the package that should be reduced?

pkgreviewr::pkgreview_print_source("rdflib")

* might not be suitable for large packages with many exported functions

comments:

Review test suite:

test coverage

covr::package_coverage(pkg_dir)

inspect tests

comments:

---

annakrystalli/pkgreviewr documentation built on Sept. 12, 2023, 5:35 p.m.