Closed whedon closed 5 years ago
Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @JKutt 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:
For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:
@whedon commands
Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
PDF failed to compile for issue #1358 with the following error:
/app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-96d847bd9060/lib/whedon.rb:83:in check_fields': Paper YAML header is missing expected fields: date (RuntimeError) from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-96d847bd9060/lib/whedon.rb:69:in
initialize'
from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-96d847bd9060/lib/whedon/processor.rb:32:in new' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-96d847bd9060/lib/whedon/processor.rb:32:in
set_paper'
from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-96d847bd9060/bin/whedon:55:in prepare' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor/command.rb:27:in
run'
from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor/invocation.rb:126:in invoke_command' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor.rb:387:in
dispatch'
from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor/base.rb:466:in start' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-96d847bd9060/bin/whedon:116:in
<top (required)>'
from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bin/whedon:23:in load' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bin/whedon:23:in
:wave: Many thanks @JKutt for being willing to review! Above there is a checklist to help guide your review. Please feel free to open issues on the target repository with comments or suggestions for improvement in the submission and link them here by mentioning openjournals/joss-reviews#1358
in the issue text.
The author @alkirkby mentioned that she will fix the images in the paper on monday.
Please let me know if you have any questions!
@whedon generate pdf
Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
PDF failed to compile for issue #1358 with the following error:
/app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-96d847bd9060/lib/whedon.rb:83:in check_fields': Paper YAML header is missing expected fields: date (RuntimeError) from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-96d847bd9060/lib/whedon.rb:69:in
initialize'
from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-96d847bd9060/lib/whedon/processor.rb:32:in new' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-96d847bd9060/lib/whedon/processor.rb:32:in
set_paper'
from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-96d847bd9060/bin/whedon:55:in prepare' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor/command.rb:27:in
run'
from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor/invocation.rb:126:in invoke_command' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor.rb:387:in
dispatch'
from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor/base.rb:466:in start' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-96d847bd9060/bin/whedon:116:in
<top (required)>'
from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bin/whedon:23:in load' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bin/whedon:23:in
@whedon generate pdf
Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
@whedon generate pdf
Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
Hi @lheagy, I managed to complete my review! I had a bit of a stumble at first getting things running but after following the Linux install more thoroughly I managed to get it going. Once up and running everything went quite smooth! A lot of good stuff in here. I found a few things and created an issue for one but the others already exist (e.g. error with print statements due to python 2 vs. 3).
Hey @JKutt, thanks for the review! We're glad you managed to install MTPy in the end, but we are tidying up some of the issues at the moment to make it easier for users. I was wondering if you could let me know the issue numbers for the issues you mentioned above? I can't find anything in the issues page about print statements with python 2 vs 3, for example. I need to go through the issues page as some of the issues were resolved but never closed.
Many thanks for your speedy review @JKutt! @alkirkby: it looks they are issues
Great thanks @lheagy. I've checked both those issues - #78 has been addressed and I have now addressed #77.
Hi @alkirkby the "print" statements issue was brought up in MTgeophysics/mtpy#63
Hi @JKutt, Fei tells me that the print statements issue was resolved, are you able to specify where in MTPy you're encountering these issues?
Hi @JKutt, Fei tells me that the print statements issue was resolved, are you able to specify where in MTPy you're encountering these issues?
@alkirkby sorry for the late reply, missed this one. I can't quite remember off the top of my head but it was in places where "print" is used instead of "print()"
Hi @JKutt and @alkirkby: Two weeks ago, I did fix one new print issue in mtpy/imaging/plotstrike.py https://github.com/MTgeophysics/mtpy/commit/c4b6f3d8ffac3636a9bb60e7fc072bffcf312f73
Today, I applied 2to3 to every *.py script in mtpy. But had not found any print statement issue. All active print statement has been changed to print() in the refactoring long time ago. (some py2 prints may exist in commented out # lines. But they are not active).
Please let me know. Thanks
Thanks @zhang01GA! @JKutt, would you mind taking another look when you have a chance?
Thanks @zhang01GA! @JKutt, would you mind taking another look when you have a chance?
All seems good now! No issues second time around.
👋 @JKutt: it looks like the box for automated-tests
is still un-checked. Do you have any other comments wrt testing? or can this be ticked off? Thanks!
👋 @JKutt: it looks like the box for automated-tests is still un-checked. Do you have any other comments wrt testing? or can this be ticked off? Thanks!
@lheagy darn, I missed that one! Apologies. No concern on the testing, simply missed ticking it off. Should be good now!
@whedon check references
Attempting to check references...
OK DOIs
- 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2004.02281.x is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2004.02203.x is OK
- 10.1029/JB092iB01p00633 is OK
- 10.1190/1.1442813 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2011.05347.x is OK
- 10.1016/j.cageo.2014.01.010 is OK
- 10.1016/J.CAGEO.2014.07.013 is OK
- 10.1190/1.1438799 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-246X.1962.tb02992.x is OK
MISSING DOIs
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246x.2005.02779.x may be missing for title: Determinable and non-determinable parameters of galvanic distortion in magnetotellurics
INVALID DOIs
- None
Many thanks @JKutt for your review!!
@alkirkby, just a couple minor things to address before we proceed with publication.
It looks like there is one missing DOI in the paper:
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246x.2005.02779.x may be missing for title: Determinable and non-determinable parameters of galvanic distortion in magnetotellurics
Also, I posted an issue about the documentation website - currently, it looks like the auto-documentation isn't functioning as expected (MTgeophysics/mtpy#80). Please take a look when you have a chance.
@whedon check references
Attempting to check references...
OK DOIs
- 10.1111/j.1365-246x.2005.02779.x is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2004.02281.x is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2004.02203.x is OK
- 10.1029/JB092iB01p00633 is OK
- 10.1190/1.1442813 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2011.05347.x is OK
- 10.1016/j.cageo.2014.01.010 is OK
- 10.1016/J.CAGEO.2014.07.013 is OK
- 10.1190/1.1438799 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-246X.1962.tb02992.x is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
Hi @lheagy, okay great!
@zhang01GA is looking into the documentation issue and will link the user guide from the main page. I've just fixed the doi issue. Nearly there!
Hi @lheagy, @zhang01GA has now fixed the documentation issue and has added a link to the user guide to the front page.
Excellent, thanks @alkirkby!
Please take a look at the pdf proof below. If everything looks good, then please make a new release and archive the software on zenodo or similar and ensure that the title and author list match those in the paper. Then, please post the new version number and doi here.
@whedon generate pdf
Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
Great thanks @lheagy, I've just created a release and archived the software: DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.2698634 We are now just awaiting final sign-off of the proof. We'll let you know when it's ready to go!
Hi @lheagy, We have just obtained final approval of the proof so are ready to go ahead with the next stage of the process!
version number is 1.0
@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.2698634 as archive
OK. 10.5281/zenodo.2698634 is the archive.
@whedon set 1.0 as version
OK. 1.0 is the version.
@whedon check references
Attempting to check references...
OK DOIs
- 10.1111/j.1365-246x.2005.02779.x is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2004.02281.x is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2004.02203.x is OK
- 10.1029/JB092iB01p00633 is OK
- 10.1190/1.1442813 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2011.05347.x is OK
- 10.1016/j.cageo.2014.01.010 is OK
- 10.1016/J.CAGEO.2014.07.013 is OK
- 10.1190/1.1438799 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-246X.1962.tb02992.x is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
@whedon set v1.0 as version
OK. v1.0 is the version.
Submitting author: @alkirkby (Alison Kirkby) Repository: https://github.com/MTgeophysics/mtpy Version: v1.0 Editor: @lheagy Reviewer: @JKutt Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.2698634
Status
Status badge code:
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
@JKutt, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:
The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @lheagy know.
✨ Please try and complete your review in the next two weeks ✨
Review checklist for @JKutt
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
paper.md
file include a list of authors with their affiliations?