At #runconf16, we discussed building an automated checker for packages submitted to ROpenSci to that would check some things beyond
R CMD check and provide a report to editors/reviewers so as to reduce what they had to check manually. Reviewers: what kinds of things would you find helpful?
Here are some things we came up with,
lint()report checking things like consistency in function names
- Is there a vignette?
- What is the test coverage?
- The NOTES/WARNINGS/ERRORS from R CMD Check
- what CI service is being used? (A Linux AND Windows CI?)
- README.Rmd is used if there is substantial code in README
- Lines of code in .R files, Roxygen comments, and tests
- List of packages in Depends
- List of packages used that are non-recommended scaffolding (XML v xml2, etc.)
- Is there a code of conduct?
- print() or cat() calls in functions
This pre-check has two purposes: to identify things that we would want an author to fix before review (the editor check), and to identify things that a reviewer may want to focus on during the review. Both ultimately aim to reduce the burden on reviewers and to provide the authors with faster feedback on some things.
Note that not all of these are requirements. For instance, we have recommended scaffolding packages, but authors can use others if they have good reason. But we think it would be useful for reviewers to be alerted to these cases.
What else might we consider putting in such as report so that it is useful (and also concise)?