search

JuliaCon / proceedings-review

6 stars 1 forks source link

[REVIEW]: FlowFPX: Nimble Tools for Debugging Floating-Point Exceptions #148

Open editorialbot opened 2 months ago

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@ashton314<!--end-author-handle-- (Ashton Wiersdorf) Repository: https://github.com/utahplt/juliacon2023-paper Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v1.0.0 Editor: !--editor-->@lucaferranti<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @JeffreySarnoff, @dpsanders Archive: Pending

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/338a66061153419be896c7f7aab449ac"><img src="https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/338a66061153419be896c7f7aab449ac/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/338a66061153419be896c7f7aab449ac/status.svg)](https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/338a66061153419be896c7f7aab449ac)

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

@JeffreySarnoff & @dpsanders, your review will be checklist based. Each of you will have a separate checklist that you should update when carrying out your review. First of all you need to run this command in a separate comment to create the checklist:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

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

Checklists

📝 Checklist for @JeffreySarnoff

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

Hello humans, I'm @editorialbot, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks.

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@editorialbot commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper source files, type:

@editorialbot generate pdf
editorialbot commented 2 months ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.05 s (851.6 files/s, 387691.8 lines/s)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                             files          blank        comment           code
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TeX                                     11            464            403          14638
SVG                                     29              0              0           3232
Windows Module Definition                1              0              0           1593
Ruby                                     1              8              4             45
Racket                                   1              5              5             38
YAML                                     1              0              0             34
Julia                                    1              3              0             14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                                    45            480            412          19594
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

    90  Ashton Wiersdorf
    37  Ben Greenman
editorialbot commented 2 months ago 
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1145/103162.103163 is OK
- 10.1109/IEEESTD.1985.82928 is OK
- 10.1029/2020MS002246 is OK
- 10.1145/3316279.3316281 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2014.90 is OK
- 10.1145/3579990.3580020 is OK
- 10.11588/ans.2015.100.20553 is OK
- 10.1145/3324989.3325721 is OK
- 10.1145/2998441 is OK
- 10.1515/jnum-2012-0013 is OK
- 10.1145/3330345.3330346 is OK
- 10.1016/j.parco.2021.102870 is OK
- 10.1002/0471028959 is OK
- 10.1109/Correctness56720.2022.00006 is OK
- 10.1109/Correctness54621.2021.00007 is OK
- 10.1145/3520313.3534655 is OK
- 10.1109/XLOOP56614.2022.00010 is OK
- 10.1145/3588195.3592991 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.02018 is OK
- 10.1109/ASE.2019.00118 is OK
- 10.1109/IISWC55918.2022.00014 is OK
- 10.5281/ZENODO.5115765 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2014.11 is OK
- 10.1145/2737924.2737959 is OK
- 10.1145/3586183.3606819 is OK
- 10.1109/IPDPS.2007.370254 is OK
- 10.1109/MC.2019.2926614 is OK
- 10.1145/3369583.3392673 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-76526-6 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2209.05433 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Handling IEEE 754 Invalid Operation Exceptions in ...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Low-Precision Climate Computing: Preserving Inform...
- 10.2307/2317055 may be a valid DOI for title: The Art of Computer Programming, Volume 2: Seminum...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: OrdinaryDiffEq.jl
- No DOI given, and none found for title: DUNE Numerics
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Open Source Reports
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Issue Search: \textttNaN+infinity
- No DOI given, and none found for title: IEEE Working Group P3109 Interim Report on 8-bit B...

INVALID DOIs

- 10.1007/978-3-031-08751-6\_9 URL is INVALID
editorialbot commented 2 months ago

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.tex is 4728

🔴 Failed to discover a Statement of need section in paper

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

License info:

🔴 Failed to discover a valid open source license

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

lucaferranti commented 2 months ago

@jeffreysarnoff, @dpsanders (cc @ashton314) thank you for volunteering as reviewers! :pray: I'll be the editor handling this submission and you can ask me questions any time.

For start, you can generate your reviewer checklist by commenting

@editorialbot generate my checklist

(do not include other text in the message where you run that command)

Note: In this submission, the paper is in its own repository instead of being in the software repository. This is allowed. You can find the software here: https://github.com/utahplt/FloatTracker.jl

As you go through the checklist, you can leave your review comments either as issues in the paper/software repository or directly here. If you have any questions, ping me

JeffreySarnoff commented 2 months ago

Review checklist for @JeffreySarnoff

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Paper format

Content

JeffreySarnoff commented 2 months ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 2 months ago

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

JeffreySarnoff commented 2 months ago

Is there an approved way to leave notes. For example, while there is no section titled 'Statement of need' The Abstract does cover the need. I do not know if this suffice; it does seem appropriate to mention.

On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 3:09 AM The Open Journals editorial robot < @.***> wrote:

👉📄 Download article proof https://raw.githubusercontent.com/JuliaCon/proceedings-papers/jcon.00148/jcon.00148/10.21105.jcon.00148.pdf 📄 View article proof on GitHub https://github.com/JuliaCon/proceedings-papers/blob/jcon.00148/jcon.00148/10.21105.jcon.00148.pdf 📄 👈

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/JuliaCon/proceedings-review/issues/148#issuecomment-2078763589, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAM2VRQHWSYSHU566GMWOM3Y7H4TLAVCNFSM6AAAAABGZI7626VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDANZYG43DGNJYHE . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

lucaferranti commented 2 months ago

You can add notes as comment in this thread. When I've reviewed, I generally collect all my notes/feedback in a single comment which I post in the review issue (this one). If you want to recommend changes in the paper / code you can also directly open issues in the repositories. In that case, please do mention this issue also there.

For your question of the statement of need. It is not strictly necassary to have a section with that name, but there should be a clear motivation for the software and the problem it is trying to solve. If you feel this is well described in the abstract/introduction, then you can tick the box

JeffreySarnoff commented 1 month ago

I am quizzical. The checklist is written for papers that are all about a Julia repository. FlowFPX is the "hook" yet there is no FlowFPX.jl afaik. I do see that this is a toolkit, still, having FlowFPX.jl that has the individual tools as [deps] (or subsets) along with a place for the docs to live together would be nice. Meanwhile -- I don't know what to do with the unchecked boxes .. they seem not applicable or to be considered at a later evolution. Nonetheless I appreciate the capabilities you have made available.

bennn commented 1 month ago

Great point, there really should be a FlowFPX repo that brings the toolbox together. We'll see what we can do. (Unfortunately, all the students involved have graduated or moved on since JuliaCon'23.)

bennn commented 4 weeks ago

The best we can do now is a loose coupling, basically with a readme. Putting at all together in a robust-cross-platform Julia package is tough because the different components of FlowFPX use different languages & hardware (C for CSTGs, Nvidia GPUs for GPUFPX).

JeffreySarnoff commented 4 weeks ago

That is all I had expected

On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 1:48 PM Ben Greenman @.***> wrote:

The best we can do now is a loose coupling, basically with a readme. Putting at all together in a robust-cross-platform Julia package is tough because the different components of FlowFPX use different languages & hardware (C for CSTGs, Nvidia GPUs for GPUFPX).

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/JuliaCon/proceedings-review/issues/148#issuecomment-2135805148, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAM2VRXH4WJH4P577XH74RTZES7QHAVCNFSM6AAAAABGZI7626VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCMZVHAYDKMJUHA . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

bennn commented 3 weeks ago

Added a landing page link to the paper: https://utahplt.github.io/flowfpx

bennn commented 3 weeks ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 3 weeks ago

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

lucaferranti commented 1 week ago

Hi @dpsanders :wave: ,

were you able to start the review? Any projected timeline for it?

dpsanders commented 1 week ago

Apologies, not yet. I hope to get to it soon.