[REVIEW]: ComplexRegions.jl: A Julia package for regions in the complex plane

whedon commented 4 years ago

Submitting author: @tobydriscoll (Tobin Driscoll) Repository: https://github.com/complexvariables/ComplexRegions.jl Version: v0.1.1 Editor: @drvinceknight Reviewer: @dlfivefifty, @dpsanders Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.3548866

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/73e8c56985d88c36b918c58cc1346d7a"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/73e8c56985d88c36b918c58cc1346d7a/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/73e8c56985d88c36b918c58cc1346d7a/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/73e8c56985d88c36b918c58cc1346d7a)

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

@dlfivefifty & @dpsanders, 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.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @drvinceknight know.

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

Review checklist for @dlfivefifty

Conflict of interest

[x] I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

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] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@tobydriscoll) 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 functionality 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] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
[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] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
[x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
[ ] References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

Review checklist for @dpsanders

Conflict of interest

[x] I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

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] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@tobydriscoll) 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 functionality 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] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
[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] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
[x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
[x] References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

whedon commented 4 years ago

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @dlfivefifty, @dpsanders it looks like you're currently assigned to review 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

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 4 years ago

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon commented 4 years ago

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

dlfivefifty commented 4 years ago

@whedon commands

whedon commented 4 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

EDITORIAL TASKS

# Compile the paper
@whedon generate pdf

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

# Ask Whedon to check the references for missing DOIs
@whedon check references

dlfivefifty commented 4 years ago

I think my review is essentially done. The main thing is referencing related work of IntervalSets.jl and DomainSets.jl, see

https://github.com/complexvariables/ComplexRegions.jl/issues/1

drvinceknight commented 4 years ago

Thank you @dlfivefifty :+1: 💪

dpsanders commented 4 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 4 years ago

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon commented 4 years ago

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

dpsanders commented 4 years ago

My main review is now complete.

There is basically nothing written down about how to contribute to the package, but I think it's understood this is done initially via issues, which seems fine to me.

I opened a couple of issues in the repo with suggestions for improvements.

drvinceknight commented 4 years ago

Thank @dpsanders and @dlfivefifty, @tobydriscoll if you could confirm when you've addressed the comments that would be great.

tobydriscoll commented 4 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 4 years ago

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon commented 4 years ago

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

dpsanders commented 4 years ago

There seems to be a problem with unicode characters in the Julia source code. @drvinceknight what can be done about that?

tobydriscoll commented 4 years ago

I'm not married to using unicode for this submission. I've pushed a change that avoids it.

tobydriscoll commented 4 years ago

@drvinceknight I think I have addressed the reviewers' comments. Both were quite helpful.

drvinceknight commented 4 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 4 years ago

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon commented 4 years ago

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

drvinceknight commented 4 years ago

@dpsanders and @dlfivefifty could you confirm you're happy with the requested modifications? (Thanks again for your time :+1:)

dpsanders commented 4 years ago

Good for me, thanks.

dpsanders commented 4 years ago

The References heading in the PDF didn't come out right.

tobydriscoll commented 4 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 4 years ago

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon commented 4 years ago

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

tobydriscoll commented 4 years ago

@dpsanders I needed to put in a blank line. References header is ok now.

drvinceknight commented 4 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 4 years ago

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon commented 4 years ago

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

drvinceknight commented 4 years ago

@dlfivefifty could you confirm you're now happy with the paper?

Good for me, thanks.

@dpsanders I've taken the liberty to tick the two remaining boxes on your check list ("Community guidelines", "State of the field" and "Reference").

dlfivefifty commented 4 years ago

Two comments:

The citation for IntervalSets.jl gives Huybrechs and myself (Olver) too much credit: we’ve made contributions but it was created by @mronian, with many contributions by @timholy
The use of “.jl” in package names should be consistent between “ComplexRegions” and “IntervalSets.jl and DomainSets.jl”.

tobydriscoll commented 4 years ago

Updates:

I have avoided trying to summarize credit for IntervalSets. The paper links to it, where the full history is easy to see.
I have decided to go without .jl on all the package names. It's an editorial choice, but seeing it over and over is really clunky.

tobydriscoll commented 4 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 4 years ago

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon commented 4 years ago

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

dlfivefifty commented 4 years ago

Ok one last comment: add references for DomainSets and IntervalSets as otherwise it’s not clear how to find them. This could just be links to the github pages

tobydriscoll commented 4 years ago

My mistake. I thought adding them as markdown links would get through. I put them in the Refs section instead.

@whedon generate pdf

tobydriscoll commented 4 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 4 years ago

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon commented 4 years ago

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

tobydriscoll commented 4 years ago

sigh Forgot to brace my capital Js. Trying again.

tobydriscoll commented 4 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 4 years ago

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon commented 4 years ago

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

drvinceknight commented 4 years ago

@whedon check references

whedon commented 4 years ago

Attempting to check references...

whedon commented 4 years ago


OK DOIs

- 10/gf9fzf is OK
- 10.1109/tmi.2004.831226 is OK
- 10.1137/060659119 is OK
- 10.1093/imamat/hxw028 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.2514/3.9819 may be missing for title: Wind-tunnel wall corrections on a two-dimensional plate by conformal mapping
- https://doi.org/10.1006/jcph.1993.1175 may be missing for title: Numerical Conformal Mapping Methods for Exterior Regions with Corners
- https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-247x(79)90086-6 may be missing for title: Capacitance and the conformal module of quadrilaterals
- https://doi.org/10.21236/ada198706 may be missing for title: Potential flow in channels
- https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01418327 may be missing for title: An integral equation method for the numerical conformal mapping of interior, exterior, and doubly-connected domains
- https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-0427(86)90133-0 may be missing for title: Numerical conformal mapping via the Szegő kernel
- https://doi.org/10.1109/22.156612 may be missing for title: Conformal mapping analyses of microstrips with circular and elliptic cross-sections
- https://doi.org/10.1137/0910031 may be missing for title: A Fast Algorithm for the Numerical Evaluation of Conformal Mappings
- https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-0427(86)90141-x may be missing for title: Conformal mapping solution of Laplace’s equation on a polygon with oblique derivative boundary conditions
- https://doi.org/10.1063/1.331373 may be missing for title: The geometric correction factor for a rectangular Hall plate

INVALID DOIs

- None

drvinceknight commented 4 years ago

@tobydriscoll it looks like a number of DOIs are missing, would you be able to add those please?

@dlfivefifty I believe the references you asked for are included now (but if you could confirm you're happy for this to be accepted that would be great :+1:)

openjournals / joss-reviews