Mail count & Issue count

[JoJoDeveloping]

Prerequisites

• I adhere to the coding conventions (described here) in my code.
• I have updated the copyright headers of the files I have modified.
• I have written appropriate commit messages, i.e., I have recorded the goal, the need, the needed changes, and the location of my code modifications for each commit. This includes also, e.g., referencing to relevant issues.
• I have put signed-off tags in all commits.
• I have updated the changelog file NEWS.md appropriately.
• The pull request is opened against the branch dev.
• All tests pass

Description

Adds methods that add relevant attributes to implement the changes noted in #188
These are per-author and include:

• issue count
• issue comment count
• mail count
• mail thread count
• PR count
• PR comment count

The definition of when an author is related to an issue are tentative and should be looked over. In particular we have:

• An issue is counted for someone if they participated in that issue in any way (i.e. labeling, commenting, opening/closing, mentioning)
• An issue is counted for someone if they comment in it
• A PR is counted for the person opening it
• A PR is counted for a person when they comment in it (this includes the initial author, mostly, as they write the initial description)
• A PR is counted for a person when they participate it in any way (i.e. labeling, commenting, opening/closing, mentioning, adding comments to it)

As an added bonus, we also fix #185. We also rename the issue data getters in util-data.R so that they are named consistently with the commit data getters.

Merging this closes #185, closes #188.

[JoJoDeveloping]

I don't know why CI fails. I can build it locally and run the tests just fine. The CI also only fails for version 3.3 with an error indicating sqldf is missing (?).

[bockthom]

Thanks @JoJoDeveloping for this very nice pull request! 🥳 I really appreciate it. In particular, I like your abstractions and, especially, also the different kinds of how to count issues and pull requests. 👍 Nevertheless, as this affects also filtering and configuration options of the project data, we should discuss about that together in our next meeting, as this also may affect code beyond this pull request. For that reason, I did not yet have a look at your changes in util-networks-covariates and also not at your tests. Stay tuned!

In the meanwhile, there are a few minor issues you could work on 😉 For example, your fancy helper function would be even fancier if you would add a few inline comments. For more details, see my comments below.
When reading my comments, please also keep in mind that some of the coding-style related comments also hold for several other places in your implementation than just the one I have added the comment at.

In case of questions, please don't hesitate to ask.

[hechtlC]

Nice work @JoJoDeveloping . I found a couple of additional things which were not mentioned in @bockthom's review.

[clhunsen]

Thanks for your PR, @JoJoDeveloping! 😃 Keep up the good work!

This is not a full review as I have not looked into the implementation in detail. I just want to share my thoughts on some things that I spotted while scanning the comments of @bockthom and @hechtlC. 😉

[hechtlC]

First of all thanks for the good work on this enhancement @JoJoDeveloping.

There are some problems here (mostly documentation). These will need to be fixed. Please also check whether there are more than one occurrence of the documentation problems as I have not marked every one.

Please also don't forget to address the old comments.

[bockthom]

Thanks @JoJoDeveloping for working on this PR. I just had a quick view at it and spotted only minor issues. I will do a full pass when all the remaining issues (especially to the test suite) are fixed.

I have already spotted a few issues:

1. This PR contains files which should not be part of it, e.g., tests/testthat-problems.rds. Please remove them via rebase, as we don't want such files to show up in the commit history. Please also check if there are other files that should not appear here.
2. There still are some violations of the coding conventions (spacing, indentation, etc.). The individual comments below just indicate some of them. Please also check for similar violations not explicitly mentioned in our reviews.
3. The test data for pull-requests contains unrealistic data. Please adjust events in such a way that they can occur in a real setting, see also my comments below.

Please see also the individual comments below.

[bockthom]

Yet another review on my part 😃

In the end, I have added way more comments than I wanted to add... but I think that we are close to merging, though, if the comments are adressed. However, the longer the time span between two subsequent reviews, the higher the probability that I will spot new issues that I have not spotted yet 😉
Maybe you would like make use of this information when addressing my comments 😄
Anyway, please find my detailed comments below. If anything is unclear, don't hesitate to ask.

[bockthom]

I'm done with my final review! As soon as the stated issues regarding test, news, and showcase/util-networks-metrics are fixed, this PR can be merged.

[bockthom]

Thanks @JoJoDeveloping for your endurance. This PR contains a lot of substantial and valuable changes and will definitively improve coronet in various directions.
All the implementation-related issues (at least, those which we have spotted) are fixed now, looks really good 😄 👍

The only point of criticism left is that the last commit's message does not contain a signed-off tag 😉