search

openjournals / joss-reviews

Reviews for the Journal of Open Source Software
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
712 stars 38 forks source link

[REVIEW]: htmldate: A Python package to extract publication dates from web pages #2439

Closed whedon closed 4 years ago

whedon commented 4 years ago

Submitting author: @adbar (Adrien Barbaresi) Repository: https://github.com/adbar/htmldate Version: v0.7.0 Editor: @danielskatz Reviewer: @geoffbacon, @proycon Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.3966235

:warning: JOSS reduced service mode :warning:

Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/71cfb002bbc47d453586f1bf2ab30b85"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/71cfb002bbc47d453586f1bf2ab30b85/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/71cfb002bbc47d453586f1bf2ab30b85/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/71cfb002bbc47d453586f1bf2ab30b85)

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

@geoffbacon & @proycon, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

  1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
  2. 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 @danielskatz know.

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

Review checklist for @geoffbacon

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Review checklist for @proycon

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

whedon commented 4 years ago

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @geoffbacon, @proycon it looks like you're currently assigned to review this paper :tada:.

:warning: JOSS reduced service mode :warning:

Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.

: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:

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

watching

  1. 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 
Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

- 10.1515/zgl-2017-0017 is OK
- 10.18653/v1/w16-2602 is OK
- 10.1162/coli.2007.33.1.147 is OK
- 10.1007/s10579-009-9081-4 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None
whedon commented 4 years ago

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

danielskatz commented 4 years ago

👋 @geoffbacon & @proycon - thanks for agreeing to review this submission. Please be sure to read the comments above, and let me know if you have any questions. Basically, your job is to check the article proof and repository and check items off your checklist above.

If you see small problems that need to be discussed, feel free to discuss them here. But if you can, create a new issue in the target repository and link to this review thread in that issue to create a corresponding breadcrumb trail here.

I look forward to seeing how this review goes!

geoffbacon commented 4 years ago

Thanks @danielskatz - I will have this done by Friday 10th July (PDT).

proycon commented 4 years ago

I completed my review, ticking the boxes in the original post (@danielskatz I assume there's some protection layer there confirming that I was the one ticking them right?).

Overal summary: I think it's a well written paper and useful software package, suitable for publication in JOSS.

Some extra comments:

Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@adbar) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

The 2nd contributor (@DerKozmonaut) I assume to be the person Yannick Kozmus that is explicitly acknowledged in the acknowledgements section, this seems appropriate and complete to me.

I evaluated some of the software's functionality by running it on a few arbitrary URLs:

For the developers, I'd say there's possible room for future improvement in adding some specific heuristics for some big platforms like reddit and wikipedia. (should be easy pickings)

danielskatz commented 4 years ago

@proycon - thanks!

I completed my review, ticking the boxes in the original post (@danielskatz I assume there's some protection layer there confirming that I was the one ticking them right?).

no, but the fact that you have written here about the paper being suitable implies that you have also checked off all the items, or at least, that you agree with their status as being checked off.

geoffbacon commented 4 years ago

Hi @danielskatz - I'll be able to get to this on Monday, thanks for understanding.

geoffbacon commented 4 years ago

Finished my review. Like @proycon, I find htmldate to be a useful utility library with a clear motivation. I particularly appreciated the evaluation suite that tests the library against numerous other existing solutions.

danielskatz commented 4 years ago

Thanks @geoffbacon

danielskatz commented 4 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 4 years ago

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

danielskatz commented 4 years ago

@whedon check references

whedon commented 4 years ago 
Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

- 10.1515/zgl-2017-0017 is OK
- 10.18653/v1/w16-2602 is OK
- 10.1162/coli.2007.33.1.147 is OK
- 10.1007/s10579-009-9081-4 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None
danielskatz commented 4 years ago

@adbar- to finish this process, I've suggested some changes to the paper in https://github.com/adbar/htmldate/pull/15 Please also fix the references, for example the booktitle in Hamborg et al. has some incorrect cases, as does at least one python (that should be Python). Please check all the references carefully, and use {}s in the bibtex to protect cases.

Then use @whedon generate pdf to regenerate the PDF to check.

Once you are happy with this, please

I can then move forward with accepting the submission.

adbar commented 4 years ago

@proycon @geoffbacon thank you for your feedback!

@danielskatz thank you for the suggestions and the guidelines, I'll proceed as instructed above.

danielskatz commented 4 years ago

👋 @adbar - I haven't seen an update in 15 days, and there's certainly nothing major left to do. How are you proceeding on these final steps?

adbar commented 4 years ago

@danielskatz I'm actually working on it right now ;) I had a few pull requests to process and improvements to make, I'll be contacting you shortly with the final version.

adbar commented 4 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 4 years ago

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

adbar commented 4 years ago

@danielskatz Are we good to go?

adbar commented 4 years ago

@proycon The issue with Wikipedia is now solved. Reddit doesn't currently display dates that are extractable in a straightforward way, I'll keep this case in mind.

danielskatz commented 4 years ago

@adbar - can you merge https://github.com/adbar/htmldate/pull/20 as well?

adbar commented 4 years ago

@danielskatz yes, thank you for the revision!

danielskatz commented 4 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 4 years ago

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

danielskatz commented 4 years ago

@whedon set v0.7.0 as version

whedon commented 4 years ago

OK. v0.7.0 is the version.

danielskatz commented 4 years ago

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.3966235 as archive

whedon commented 4 years ago

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.3966235 is the archive.

danielskatz commented 4 years ago

@whedon check references

whedon commented 4 years ago 
Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

- 10.1515/zgl-2017-0017 is OK
- 10.18653/v1/w16-2602 is OK
- 10.1162/coli.2007.33.1.147 is OK
- 10.1007/s10579-009-9081-4 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None
danielskatz commented 4 years ago

@whedon accept

whedon commented 4 years ago 
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
whedon commented 4 years ago 
Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

- 10.1515/zgl-2017-0017 is OK
- 10.18653/v1/w16-2602 is OK
- 10.1162/coli.2007.33.1.147 is OK
- 10.1007/s10579-009-9081-4 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None
whedon commented 4 years ago

:wave: @openjournals/joss-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1603

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1603, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true
danielskatz commented 4 years ago

@whedon accept deposit=true

whedon commented 4 years ago 
Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...
whedon commented 4 years ago

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

whedon commented 4 years ago

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

Here's what you must now do:

  1. Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/1604
  2. Wait a couple of minutes to verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02439
  3. If everything looks good, then close this review issue.

  4. Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

    Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

danielskatz commented 4 years ago

Thanks to @geoffbacon & @proycon for reviewing!

Congratulations to @adbar!!

whedon commented 4 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](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02439/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02439)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02439">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02439/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02439/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02439

This is how it will look in your documentation:

DOI

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: