[REVIEW]: ggvoronoi: Voronoi Diagrams and Heatmaps with ggplot2

whedon commented 5 years ago

Submitting author: @garretrc (Robert Garrett) Repository: https://github.com/garretrc/ggvoronoi Version: v0.8.2 Editor: @yochannah Reviewer: @trinker, @corybrunson Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.1933346

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/7e294d1043804b4b36ce6dca29db7999"><img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/7e294d1043804b4b36ce6dca29db7999/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/7e294d1043804b4b36ce6dca29db7999/status.svg)](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/7e294d1043804b4b36ce6dca29db7999)

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) 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

@trinker & @corybrunson, 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.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @yochannah know.

✨ Please try and complete your review in the next two weeks ✨

Review checklist for @trinker

Conflict of interest

[x] As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSS 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 JOSS 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] Version: Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v0.8.2)?
[x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@garretrc) 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

Software paper

[x] Authors: Does the paper.md 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)?

Review checklist for @corybrunson

Conflict of interest

[x] As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSS 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 JOSS 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] Version: Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v0.8.2)?
[x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@garretrc) 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

Software paper

[x] Authors: Does the paper.md 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)?

whedon commented 5 years ago

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @trinker, it looks like you're currently assigned as the reviewer for this paper :tada:.

:star: Important :star:

If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews) repository. As a reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all reviews 😿

To fix this do the following two things:

Set yourself as 'Not watching' https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews:

watching

You may also like to change your default settings for this watching repositories in your GitHub profile here: https://github.com/settings/notifications

notifications

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

@whedon commands

whedon commented 5 years ago

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon commented 5 years ago

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

corybrunson commented 5 years ago

Thanks @garretrc for this elegant Voronoi extension! I'll start raising issues at the code repo momentarily. As you address the issues, i'll check off the related items on my review checklist. If you think some of my issues aren't really problematic, or if you think my suggestions are not great, then please let me know in the issue thread and handle them as you see fit—i'll probably then better understand the issue and check it off for reviewing purposes.

garretrc commented 5 years ago

Thanks for the feedback! I've started to go through the issues on the ggvoronoi repository. I'll close issues on that repo if I'm confident the issue is resolved and comment if I have any questions.

garretrc commented 5 years ago

@corybrunson I've addressed each issue, one is still open and I've left a comment as justification. If you accept that reasoning you can close the issue, otherwise leave a comment and I can make further changes. Feel free to re-open any of the other issues if you feel my solutions aren't acceptable! Thank you.

corybrunson commented 5 years ago

@whedon commands

whedon commented 5 years ago

Here are some things you can ask me to do:

# List Whedon's capabilities
@whedon commands

# List of editor GitHub usernames
@whedon list editors

# List of reviewers together with programming language preferences and domain expertise
@whedon list reviewers

# Compile the paper
@whedon generate pdf

🚧 🚧 🚧 Experimental Whedon features 🚧 🚧 🚧

# Compile the paper from a custom git branch
@whedon generate pdf from branch custom-branch-name

corybrunson commented 5 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 5 years ago

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon commented 5 years ago

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

corybrunson commented 5 years ago

@garretrc thanks for addressing all of the issues! You've resolved or explained them to my satisfaction.

@yochannah i have completed my review and, conditional on my co-reviewer's feedback, recommend acceptance of the current GitHub version (https://github.com/garretrc/ggvoronoi/commit/2b2821cb71c3744e35ecfe6e69a9c20adffbf339).

trinker commented 5 years ago

@garretrc Thanks for addressing the couple of GitHub issues. These have been addressed/resolved.

@yochannah I have also completed my review and also recommend acceptance of the current GitHub version (garretrc/ggvoronoi@c9ba48f).

yochannah commented 5 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 5 years ago

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon commented 5 years ago

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

yochannah commented 5 years ago

@corybrunson @trinker Thanks for the speedy reviews! 💯

@garretrc - At this point could you make an archive of the reviewed software in Zenodo/figshare/other service and update this thread with the DOI of the archive?

garretrc commented 5 years ago

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1933346

garretrc commented 5 years ago

Thanks @yochannah @trinker @corybrunson for all your swift work and wonderful feedback!

yochannah commented 5 years ago

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.1933346 as archive

whedon commented 5 years ago

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.1933346 is the archive.

yochannah commented 5 years ago

@arfon Okay, we're ready to accept! 🏆

Nice work, @garretrc and great job reviewing @trinker @corybrunson!

arfon commented 5 years ago

@whedon accept

whedon commented 5 years ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

whedon commented 5 years ago

Check final proof :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/101

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/101, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true

arfon commented 5 years ago

@whedon accept deposit=true

whedon commented 5 years ago

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

whedon commented 5 years ago

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

Here's what you must now do:

Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/102
Wait a couple of minutes to verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01096
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? notify your editorial technical team...

arfon commented 5 years ago

@trinker, @corybrunson - many thanks for your reviews here and to @yochannah for editing this submission ✨

@garretrc - your paper is now accepted into JOSS :zap::rocket::boom:

whedon commented 5 years 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](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01096/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01096)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01096">
  <img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01096/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01096/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01096

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

Journal of Open Source Software 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: http://joss.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause_pdetails/Mjk3Nzk=

openjournals / joss-reviews