[REVIEW]: RangeEnclosures.jl: A framework to bound function ranges

whedon commented 1 year ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@lucaferranti<!--end-author-handle-- (Luca Ferranti) Repository: https://github.com/JuliaReach/RangeEnclosures.jl Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v0.2.4 Editor: Reviewers: @dpsanders, @blegat Archive:

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/ec833e982329eeac35354d5d32e4861c"><img src="https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/ec833e982329eeac35354d5d32e4861c/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/ec833e982329eeac35354d5d32e4861c/status.svg)](https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/ec833e982329eeac35354d5d32e4861c)

Reviewers and authors:

Please avoid lengthy details of difficulties in the review thread. Instead, please create a new issue in the target repository and link to those issues (especially acceptance-blockers) by leaving comments in the review thread below. (For completists: if the target issue tracker is also on GitHub, linking the review thread in the issue or vice versa will create corresponding breadcrumb trails in the link target.)

Reviewer instructions & questions

@dpsanders & @blegat, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @odow know.

✨ Please start on your review when you are able, and be sure to complete your review in the next six weeks, at the very latest ✨

Review checklist for @dpsanders

Conflict of interest

[x] As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JuliaCon conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

[x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JuliaCon code of conduct.

General checks

[x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@lucaferranti) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

[x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
[x] Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
[x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
[x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
[x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function of the software can be verified?
[x] Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Paper format

[x] Authors: Does the paper.tex file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?
[x] Page limit: Is the page limit for extended abstracts respected by the submitted document?

Content

[x] Context: is the scientific context motivating the work correctly presented?
[x] Methodology: is the approach taken in the work justified, presented with enough details and reference to reproduce it?
[x] Results: are the results presented and compared to approaches with similar goals?

Review checklist for @blegat

Conflict of interest
[x] As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JuliaCon conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

[x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JuliaCon code of conduct.

General checks

[x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@lucaferranti) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

[x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
[x] Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
[x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
[x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
[x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function of the software can be verified?
[x] Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Paper format

[x] Authors: Does the paper.tex file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?
[x] Page limit: Is the page limit for extended abstracts respected by the submitted document?

Content

[x] Context: is the scientific context motivating the work correctly presented?
[x] Methodology: is the approach taken in the work justified, presented with enough details and reference to reproduce it?
[x] Results: are the results presented and compared to approaches with similar goals?

whedon commented 8 months ago

No archive DOI set. Exiting...

odow commented 8 months ago

@whedon set v0.2.3 as version

whedon commented 8 months ago

OK. v0.2.3 is the version.

odow commented 8 months ago

@whedon check references

whedon commented 8 months ago

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.29007/zzc7 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev-control-071420-081941 is OK
- 10.1137/141000671 is OK
- 10.1023/A:1021368627321 is OK
- 10.1023/B:NUMA.0000049462.70970.b6 is OK
- 10.1137/1.9780898717716 is OK
- 10.21105/jcon.00097 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-7091-6918-6_14 is OK
- 10.1007/978-0-387-36721-7_6 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

odow commented 8 months ago

@schillic As a final step, can you make a Zenodo (https://zenodo.org) release and then post the DOI here? You probably need to make a new GitHub release for it as well.

lucaferranti commented 8 months ago

@odow the DOI is 10.5281/zenodo.10495948

odow commented 8 months ago

@whedon set v0.2.4 as version

whedon commented 8 months ago

OK. v0.2.4 is the version.

odow commented 8 months ago

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.10495948 as archive

whedon commented 8 months ago

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.10495948 is the archive.

odow commented 8 months ago

@whedon recommend-accept

whedon commented 8 months ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

whedon commented 8 months ago

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.29007/zzc7 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev-control-071420-081941 is OK
- 10.1137/141000671 is OK
- 10.1023/A:1021368627321 is OK
- 10.1023/B:NUMA.0000049462.70970.b6 is OK
- 10.1137/1.9780898717716 is OK
- 10.21105/jcon.00097 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-7091-6918-6_14 is OK
- 10.1007/978-0-387-36721-7_6 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

whedon commented 8 months ago

:wave: @JuliaCon/jcon-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof :point_right: https://github.com/JuliaCon/proceedings-papers/pull/76

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/JuliaCon/proceedings-papers/pull/76, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true

odow commented 8 months ago

@whedon accept deposit=true

whedon commented 8 months ago

I'm sorry @odow, I'm afraid I can't do that. That's something only editor-in-chiefs are allowed to do.

odow commented 8 months ago

cc @matbesancon

matbesancon commented 8 months ago

@whedon accept deposit=true

whedon commented 8 months ago

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

whedon commented 8 months ago

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JCON! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited :point_right: https://github.com/JuliaCon/proceedings-papers/pull/77
Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/jcon.00122
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

matbesancon commented 8 months ago

Perfect, @lucaferranti you know the drill :) congrats!

schillic commented 8 months ago

Thank you all! Everything looks good to me, so I close this issue.

whedon commented 8 months ago

:tada::tada::tada: Congratulations on your paper acceptance! :tada::tada::tada:

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:

Markdown:
[![DOI](https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/10.21105/jcon.00122/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/jcon.00122)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/jcon.00122">
  <img src="https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/10.21105/jcon.00122/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/10.21105/jcon.00122/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/jcon.00122

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

JuliaCon Proceedings is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider doing either one (or both) of the the following:

Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: https://forms.gle/yANMe4c9YmuW9MWcA
Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.salsalabs.org/donate-to-jcon

dpsanders commented 8 months ago

Congrats everybody on the acceptance and the nice work :)

lucaferranti commented 6 months ago

following messages to test new editorial bot infrastructure

lucaferranti commented 6 months ago

@editorialbot commands

lucaferranti commented 6 months ago

@editorialbot commands

editorialbot commented 6 months ago

Hello @lucaferranti, here are the things you can ask me to do:


# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands

# Get a list of all editors's GitHub handles
@editorialbot list editors

# Adds a checklist for the reviewer using this command
@editorialbot generate my checklist

# Set a value for branch
@editorialbot set juliacon-paper as branch

# Reject paper
@editorialbot reject

# Withdraw paper
@editorialbot withdraw

# Invite an editor to edit a submission (sending them an email)
@editorialbot invite @(.*) as editor

# Run checks and provide information on the repository and the paper file
@editorialbot check repository

# Check the references of the paper for missing DOIs
@editorialbot check references

# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf

# Accept and publish the paper
@editorialbot accept

# Update data on an accepted/published paper
@editorialbot reaccept

# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint

# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers

lucaferranti commented 6 months ago

@arfon @xuanxu it's alive :rocket:

JuliaCon / proceedings-review