Separate opinions from the rest #76
Milestone
Comments
Merged
|
Function that does that added to dev, and robust author parsing added back. |
cboettig
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Apr 23, 2018
* 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
|
Because of the discussion in ropensci-review-tools/goodpractice#57, I came to wonder whether this functionality of |
|
Might be worth opening an issue there! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
@cboettig here are my thoughts :-)
Have a function
opinionated_codemeta_preparationor something like that returning a data.frame or list of things that could be improved if following e.g. the guidelines we have at rOpenSci onboarding (using Authors@R, URL in DESCRIPTION etc). Export it.In write_codemeta, have an argument
show_opinionsTRUE by default.create_codemetawould use the robust codemeta creating code, butwrite_codemetawould also message or warning the data.frame of potential improvements by calling the opinionated function.The user could silence this by setting
show_opinionsto FALSE.When trying to improve the metadata of a package or of a herd of packages (e.g. all rOpenSci packages) one could use the output of the opinionated function.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: