[REVIEW]: HRDS: A Python package for hierarchical raster datasets

whedon commented 5 years ago

Submitting author: @jhill1 (Jon Hill) Repository: https://github.com/EnvModellingGroup/hdrs Version: 0.1.2 Editor: @kthyng Reviewer: @edoddridge, @PythonCHB Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.2691685

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/d8f85d9247eef870a36ce3a9ccb6b64b"><img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/d8f85d9247eef870a36ce3a9ccb6b64b/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/d8f85d9247eef870a36ce3a9ccb6b64b/status.svg)](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/d8f85d9247eef870a36ce3a9ccb6b64b)

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

@edoddridge & @ PythonCHB, 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 @kthyng know.

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

Review checklist for @edoddridge

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: 0.1.2
[x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@jhill1) 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 @PythonCHB

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: 0.1.2
[x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@jhill1) 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?
[ ] References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

kthyng commented 5 years ago

@whedon set 0.1.2 as version

whedon commented 5 years ago

OK. 0.1.2 is the version.

kthyng commented 5 years ago

Ok @openjournals/joss-eics this submission is ready to be officially accepted!!! Congrats @jhill1!!

PythonCHB commented 5 years ago

Not really a big deal: but if you are publishing this, maybe it's time for version 1.0?

If it's not really ready for 1.0, it's not ready for publication, either.

labarba commented 5 years ago

@jhill1 — would you like to up you version number? We don't require it: it's up to you.

jhill1 commented 5 years ago

Leave for now, please. @PythonCHB is right that it should have been made v1.0, but I've already pushed pip and conda updates with 0.12 and referred to the version being the one published. I'd rather keep a cleaner history.

labarba commented 5 years ago

@PythonCHB — you have the "References" item unchecked. Did you find something missing there?

labarba commented 5 years ago

@whedon check references

whedon commented 5 years ago

Attempting to check references...

whedon commented 5 years ago


OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.renene.2017.09.058 is OK
- 10.1016/j.renene.2014.11.079 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

labarba commented 5 years ago

@whedon accept

whedon commented 5 years ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

whedon commented 5 years ago


OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.renene.2017.09.058 is OK
- 10.1016/j.renene.2014.11.079 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

whedon commented 5 years ago

Check final proof :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/689

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/689, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true

labarba 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/690
Wait a couple of minutes to verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01112
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? notify your editorial technical team...

labarba commented 5 years ago

Congratulations, @jhill1, your JOSS paper is published 🚀

Sincere thanks to our editor: @kthyng, and the reviewers: @edoddridge, @PythonCHB — we appreciate your enormous contribution! 🙏

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.01112/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01112)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01112">
  <img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01112/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01112/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01112

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://numfocus.salsalabs.org/donate-to-joss

openjournals / joss-reviews