EGRET issueshttps://code.usgs.gov/water/EGRET/-/issues2023-01-27T22:40:54Zhttps://code.usgs.gov/water/EGRET/-/issues/154mergeReport doesn't consistently print out summary information, depending upo...2023-01-27T22:40:54ZMullaney, John R.mergeReport doesn't consistently print out summary information, depending upon which water-quality parameter is usedWhen using mergeReport, I only get the summary information for certain parameters and not others
The first example below works and it prints the summary. However if I change the parameter to "00608", it doesn't provide the summary.
I hav...When using mergeReport, I only get the summary information for certain parameters and not others
The first example below works and it prints the summary. However if I change the parameter to "00608", it doesn't provide the summary.
I have been collecting the summary for each of these as part of the archive for the project.
library(EGRET)
BeginDate <- "1994-10-01"
EndDate <- "2021-09-30"
Site <- "01192500"
parm <- "00600"
Sample<-readNWISSample(Site,parm,BeginDate,EndDate)
Daily <- readNWISDaily(Site,"00060",BeginDate,EndDate)
INFO<-readNWISInfo(siteNumber=Site, parameterCd = parm,interactive = FALSE)
eList <- mergeReport(INFO, Daily, Sample, verbose = T)https://code.usgs.gov/water/EGRET/-/issues/153Review of TrendsByMonth and units articles2023-01-04T16:11:31ZMatt DiebelReview of TrendsByMonth and units articles## Package Review
This review is limited to the TrendsByMonth and units articles. I did not assess the overall package documentation and functionality.
- **Briefly describe any working relationship you have (had) with the package autho...## Package Review
This review is limited to the TrendsByMonth and units articles. I did not assess the overall package documentation and functionality.
- **Briefly describe any working relationship you have (had) with the package authors.**
I have discussed the package and its development with the authors several times.
- [X] As the reviewer I confirm that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.
Estimated hours spent reviewing: 2
- [X] Should the author(s) deem it appropriate, I agree to be acknowledged as a package reviewer ("rev" role) in the package DESCRIPTION file.
### Review Comments
**TrendsByMonth article**
- The trends by month article uses Conowingo.PO4.RData, but this dataset is not included in the EGRET package, so I substituted the Choptank data:
```
eList <- Choptank_eList
pairResults <- runPairs(eList, windowSide = 0,
paStart = 1, paLong = 12,
year1 = 1980, year2 = 2010)
```
- I suggest adding a '+' to change estimates that are positive. I assume decreases are denoted with a '-'. In my example, one line in the result would be: Concentration v. Q Trend Component +50 %
- I don't see the "byMonth" attribute in pairResults. Is 3.0.7.2 on CRAN? I only see the version as 3.0.7.
- Some typos in this passage: 'To see the tabular output of the results, use the “byMonth” attribute from the runPairs result. Here we show a few years of the months output:'
- The plotMonthTrend function is not defined in the article, so if the function is going to be included in the EGRET package I would revise the next passage to read: 'Next, let’s plot the results using the plotMonthTrend function:' Otherwise, define the function in the article.
- Because the plotMonthTrend function was not defined, I couldn't review it.
**units article**
- Grammar edits in this sentence: Each “slot” in this qUnit object is required, and the qShortName, qUnitName, unitUSGS, and prefix must be characters.
- All code with the `new()` function gives an error (below). Might be related to the EGRET version mentioned above.
```
Error in initialize(value, ...) :
invalid name for slot of class “qUnit”: prefix
```
- Under 'Data Input', edit first sentence to read: 'Discharge data in units other than m^3/s can be used as input in EGRET, but that data will be converted to m^3/s with the qUnit argument when the eList is created.'
If the problems I had with the code are related the EGRET version and you can point me to the correct version, I can redo this review.