[REVIEW]: instrbuilder: a Python package for control of electrical instruments

whedon commented 5 years ago

Submitting author: @lucask07 (Lucas J. Koerner) Repository: https://github.com/lucask07/instrbuilder Version: v0.1.9 Editor: @arokem Reviewer: @brainstorm, @casteer Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.2640871

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/e6bc57a8b94eb8216e128a22e3e6cf79"><img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/e6bc57a8b94eb8216e128a22e3e6cf79/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/e6bc57a8b94eb8216e128a22e3e6cf79/status.svg)](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/e6bc57a8b94eb8216e128a22e3e6cf79)

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

@brainstorm, @casteer, please carry out your reviews 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 @arokem know.

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

Review checklist for @brainstorm

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: v0.1.9
[x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@lucask07) 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 @casteer

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: v0.1.9
[x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@lucask07) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

[ ] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[ ] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
[ ] 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?
[ ] 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).
[ ] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
[ ] 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)?

lucask07 commented 5 years ago

@whedon set v0.1.9 as version

whedon commented 5 years ago

I'm sorry @lucask07, I'm afraid I can't do that. That's something only editors are allowed to do.

lucask07 commented 5 years ago

@arokem The version on GitHub and PyPi is now v0.1.9

arokem commented 5 years ago

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.2640871 as archive

whedon commented 5 years ago

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.2640871 is the archive.

arokem commented 5 years ago

@whedon set v0.1.9 as version

whedon commented 5 years ago

OK. v0.1.9 is the version.

arokem commented 5 years ago

👋 @openjournals/joss-eics this submission is ready to be accepted

arfon 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

- 10.1080/08940886.2017.1289810 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/627

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/627, 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/628
Wait a couple of minutes to verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01172
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

@brainstorm, @casteer - many thanks for your reviews here and to @arokem for editing this submission ✨

@lucask07 - 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.01172/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01172)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01172">
  <img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01172/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01172/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01172

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