-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
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.
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
Process feedback rOpenSci review #30
Comments
The first reviewer's comments:
I completely agree that getting However, I feel hand-coding the same subset of functionality is not the way to go. Note that the
I have documented using BEAST2 installed at a custom location with this commit.
This would indeed be weird! I looked into this, by writing a test that installs
I agree info on this was thin. I've created a vignette in
I've described the relation to the
I added this.
I moved Additionally, I followed your suggestion and replaced: x <- create_ns_test_inference_model() by x <- create_ns_inference_model()
x$mcmc <- create_test_ns_mcmc()
I made these link to one another. Note that the
This is a neat observation, that I was unaware of. I have fixed this.
Well spotted! I've updated the doc in this commit.
Hmmm, I wish I could reproduce that! Because if I look into the code, I do not treat the inference model different than the BEAST2 options: tryCatch({
bbt_run_out <- babette::bbt_run_from_model(
fasta_filename = fasta_filename,
inference_model = inference_model,
beast2_options = beast2_options
)
ns <- bbt_run_out$ns
},
error = function(e) {
stop(
"Could not estimate the marginal likelihood. \n",
"Error message: ", e$message, "\n",
"fasta_filename: ", fasta_filename, "\n",
"beast2_options: ", beast2_options, "\n",
"inference_model: ", inference_model, "\n"
)
} I would enjoy fixing this, but if I cannot check my results, I cannot see if I have fixed it. Could you reproduce the bug? If yes, I will happily add it!
I agreed, up until I added Minor comments
Well spotted! It now links correctly to
Renamed. Functionality
To the
Great idea, I did so by adding
I added DOIs to all journal articles.
Blimey, well spotted! I've put the Summary there 👍
I removed these quotes altogether. I've added a Travis CI test to verify that
Agreed, I've used to wording you suggested.
I rewrote most of the paper, after which phylogenies are introduced sooner.
Agreed, I've used your more precise wording. Thanks!
I have reworded in a such a way to avoid using the word 'best', and it includes that it is dependent on the alignment/dataset:
Agreed, I removed it. Thanks!
Fixed. Thanks!
Fixed. Thanks!
Did so. |
Second reviewer's reply:
Indeed, it was a bit concise. I have rephrased this as such:
To do so,
Great!
Great!
Happy to read I did a good job 👍
Happy to read I did a good job 👍
Happy to read I did a good job 👍 For packages co-submitting to JOSS
Indeed, somehow this short summary is missing! I've added it 👍
Thanks to your feedback, I have removed the whole -indeed slow- introduction and started at the point you suggested. With some rewriting, I feel I have introduced the need for statistical models enough (by introducing the term 'evidence', aka marginal likelihood) and I hope you agree.
Agreed! I have added a section 'Getting Started' that should introduce the reader to the field and direct him/her to the literature.
Agreed, thanks! I have added these! Functionality
Thanks! If you like that one, you'll love
Cool!
Awesome.
I have the same error. This was not the case upon the submission of Final approval (post-review)
Let's see what this reviewer thinks about this 👍
Done, including the ORCID ID 👍
Happy to hear this!
As noted above, the devtools issues are caused by something upstream (in the lintr package) and needs to be resolved there. Regarding the second error, I can perfectly reproduce this. I predict this is a feature, not a bug. With CTRL+SHIFT+T in R Studio or
I am happy to have this confirmed 👍
I added quite some documentation, due to feedback from the other reviewer indeed. I hope this will also satisfy your needs.
I have restructured the paper from a mix of both reviews. I hope you both like it. I, for sure, do!
Thanks so much for reviewing! |
Done! |
Posted these replies back on ropensci/software-review#360. Closing this one 👍 |
Request is here.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: