1. create review project
Create the review project, using pkgreview_create. The
function takes arguments:
-
pkg_repo: the GitHub repo details of the package under review in the formusername/repo -
review_parent:, the local directory in which the review project (and folder) will be created and package source code will be cloned into.
library(pkgreviewr)
pkgreview_create(pkg_repo = "ropensci/rdflib",
review_parent = "~/Documents/workflows/rOpenSci/reviews/")The function creates a new review project in the
review_parent directory following project naming convention
{pkgname}-review and populates the review templates to
create all required documents.
review files
The review project directory will contain all the files you’ll need to complete the review and will be initialised with git.
rdflib-review
├── README.md
├── index.Rmd
├── pkgreview.md
└── rdflib-review.Rproj
index.Rmd
The most important file it creates is the
index.Rmd html_notebook file. This workbook is prepopulated
with all the major steps required to complete the review in an
interactive document to perform and record it in. It also extracts
useful links, information and parameter values.
See example here.
Once rendered to index.nb.html
(*.nb.html is the notebook file format), this report can be
pushed to GitHub for publication.
pkgreview.md
Template response form to submit to the package rOpenSci onboarding review issue.
See template here.
README.md
Prepopulated README for the review repo that will present the repo to people navigating to it.
See example here:.
clone of package source code
To enable local testing of the package, review creation also clones
the review package source code into review_parent from the
github repository defned in pkg_repo . This also makes it
available for local review and perhaps even a pull request. Correcting
typos in documentation can be a great review contribution, but first you
might want to check the contributing guidelines or ask the author if
they are open to such pull requests.
The resulting files from a successful review project will look like this:
reviews
├── rdflib
│ ├── DESCRIPTION
│ ├── LICENSE
│ ├── NAMESPACE
│ ├── NEWS.md
│ ├── R
│ │ └── rdf.R
│ ├── README.Rmd
│ ├── README.md
│ ├── appveyor.yml
│ ├── codecov.yml
│ ├── codemeta.json
│ ├── docs
│ │ ├── LICENSE.html
│ │ ├── articles
│ │ │ ├── index.html
│ │ │ ├── rdflib.html
│ │ │ └── rdflib_files
│ │ │ ├── datatables-binding-0.2
│ │ │ │ └── datatables.js
│ │ │ ├── dt-core-1.10.12
│ │ │ │ ├── css
│ │ │ │ │ ├── jquery.dataTables.extra.css
│ │ │ │ │ └── jquery.dataTables.min.css
│ │ │ │ └── js
│ │ │ │ └── jquery.dataTables.min.js
│ │ │ ├── htmlwidgets-0.9
│ │ │ │ └── htmlwidgets.js
│ │ │ └── jquery-1.12.4
│ │ │ ├── LICENSE.txt
│ │ │ └── jquery.min.js
│ │ ├── authors.html
│ │ ├── index.html
│ │ ├── jquery.sticky-kit.min.js
│ │ ├── link.svg
│ │ ├── news
│ │ │ └── index.html
│ │ ├── pkgdown.css
│ │ ├── pkgdown.js
│ │ └── reference
│ │ ├── index.html
│ │ ├── rdf.html
│ │ ├── rdf_add.html
│ │ ├── rdf_parse.html
│ │ ├── rdf_query.html
│ │ ├── rdf_serialize.html
│ │ └── rdflib-package.html
│ ├── inst
│ │ ├── examples
│ │ │ └── rdf_table.R
│ │ └── extdata
│ │ ├── ex.xml
│ │ └── vita.json
│ ├── man
│ │ ├── rdf.Rd
│ │ ├── rdf_add.Rd
│ │ ├── rdf_parse.Rd
│ │ ├── rdf_query.Rd
│ │ ├── rdf_serialize.Rd
│ │ └── rdflib-package.Rd
│ ├── paper.bib
│ ├── paper.md
│ ├── rdflib.Rproj
│ ├── tests
│ │ ├── testthat
│ │ │ └── test-rdf.R
│ │ └── testthat.R
│ └── vignettes
│ └── rdflib.Rmd
└── rdflib-review
├── README.md
├── index.Rmd
└── rdflib-review.Rproj
2. Perform your review:
Use the index.Rmd notebook to work through the review interactively. The document is designed to guide the process in a logical fashion and bring your attention to relevant aspects and information at different stages of the review. You can make notes and record comments within index.Rmd or directly in the review submission form.
3. Submit your review:
Currently the workflow is just set up for you to just copy your
response from your completed pkgreview.md and paste it into
the review issue but we’re exploring programmatic submission also.
Because the response is currently submitted as .md, package
reprex might be useful for inserting reproducible demos of
any issues encountered.