search

openjournals / joss-reviews

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

[REVIEW]: Devicely: A Python package for reading, timeshifting and writing sensor data #3679

Closed whedon closed 3 years ago

whedon commented 3 years ago

Submitting author: @arianesasso (AM Sasso, A Sasso) Repository: https://github.com/hpi-dhc/devicely/ Version: v1.1.0 Editor: @prashjha Reviewer: @luciorq, @djmitche Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.5243494

: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/3abafc8a04e02d7c61d0bf4fb714af28"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3abafc8a04e02d7c61d0bf4fb714af28/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3abafc8a04e02d7c61d0bf4fb714af28/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/3abafc8a04e02d7c61d0bf4fb714af28)

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

@luciorq & @djmitche, 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 @prashjha know.

✨ Please start on your review when you are able, and be sure to complete your review in the next six weeks, at the very latest ✨

Review checklist for @luciorq

✨ Important: Please do not use the Convert to issue functionality when working through this checklist, instead, please open any new issues associated with your review in the software repository associated with the submission. ✨

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Review checklist for @djmitche

✨ Important: Please do not use the Convert to issue functionality when working through this checklist, instead, please open any new issues associated with your review in the software repository associated with the submission. ✨

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

whedon commented 3 years ago

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @luciorq, @djmitche 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 3 years ago

Wordcount for paper.md is 1022

whedon commented 3 years ago 
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.3390/s18061714 is OK
- 10.1038/s41569-021-00522-7 is OK
- 10.1038/s41551-020-00640-6 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.02106 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01663 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01867 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01778 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None
whedon commented 3 years ago 
Software report (experimental):

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.23 s (244.1 files/s, 130347.8 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JavaScript                      14           2405           2473           9213
HTML                             7            998             21           4161
SVG                              1              0              0           2671
Python                          14            399            452           1799
CSS                              4            191             35            757
TeX                              2             40             11            213
Markdown                         4             64              0            190
reStructuredText                 3             50             20             88
Jupyter Notebook                 1              0           2885             66
YAML                             1              8              0             47
TOML                             1              3              0             36
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
JSON                             1              0              0             14
make                             1              4              7              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            55           4170           5905          19290
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statistical information for the repository '586ac09723295cb22d15adae' was
gathered on 2021/09/01.
The following historical commit information, by author, was found:

Author                     Commits    Insertions      Deletions    % of changes
Ariane Morassi Sasso            47           953            662            3.15
Ariane Morassi-Sasso             3            20             19            0.08
Ariane Sasso                     9           568              6            1.12
Jost Morgenstern                 2            12              3            0.03
jostmorgenstern                 64         32444          16585           95.63

Below are the number of rows from each author that have survived and are still
intact in the current revision:

Author                     Rows      Stability          Age       % in comments
Ariane Morassi Sasso        631           66.2          1.2                6.97
jostmorgenstern           16110           49.7          7.3               15.94
whedon commented 3 years ago

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

prashjha commented 3 years ago

Thank you @djmitche and @luciorq for agreeing to be reviewers. Please read the comments above in this thread and also reviewer guidelines here. Also, you can browse the closed "REVIEW" issues on the "joss-reviews" repository to get some ideas on how to complete the reviews. Thanks again and good luck!

djmitche commented 3 years ago

@arianesasso this looks fantastic. The contributing guide is particularly well-done. Just one request: something that helps users figure out how to report a bug and what level of support they can expect. This may just be a GitHub issue template, for example.

arianesasso commented 3 years ago

@djmitche thank you for your feedback! I think that is a great idea, I create a GitHub issue in our repository to address that: https://github.com/hpi-dhc/devicely/issues/32 :)

luciorq commented 3 years ago

Great Work @arianesasso and fellow devicely team.

The software is already in a great state and tick most JOSS requirements out of the box. The authors went the extra mile to enhance the contribution documentation and make the software usable by the broader community.

There are some minimal issues raised in the GitHub repository that I would like to be discussed.

As already linked up here, the issues created during Review are on the devicely Issue Tracker and are being tracked by the list in this Aggegator Issue.

Relevant Link: https://github.com/hpi-dhc/devicely/issues/37

whedon commented 3 years ago

:wave: @luciorq, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

whedon commented 3 years ago

:wave: @djmitche, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).

djmitche commented 3 years ago

I think we're both waiting on issues linked above to be solved.

arianesasso commented 3 years ago

Dear Reviewers, we are almost done addressing the reviews :).

We will finish them this week, I will write back to you here once we are ready.

arianesasso commented 3 years ago

We finished implementing the suggestions :). We left the issues open for comments, could you please check them? Thank you!

@djmitche (hpi-dhc/devicely#32) and @luciorq (hpi-dhc/devicely#37)

djmitche commented 3 years ago

Will do -- thanks!

djmitche commented 3 years ago

The fix in issue 32 looks good to me. I have no further concerns, having looked through the tracker in issue 37.

luciorq commented 3 years ago

Most of my concerns have been discussed, addressed, and updated. I will be updating/closing the issues during the next day, then will update here!

arianesasso commented 3 years ago

Just wanted to quickly check if there are any other open points. Thank you :).

djmitche commented 3 years ago

none from me :)

prashjha commented 3 years ago

Thanks, @arianesasso for the reminder.

@luciorq if you too are satisfied, I will proceed with the final steps and hand it to EiC.

djmitche commented 3 years ago

Is there a button I should push for that?

luciorq commented 3 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 3 years ago

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

luciorq commented 3 years ago

Dear @prashjha & @arianesasso,

I just reviewed all commits and closed the relevant issues. I agree with @djmitche, and there aren't any additional considerations. Also, the regenerated manuscript looks good to me.

Therefore, I highly recommend this work for publication.

prashjha commented 3 years ago

Super thanks, @luciorq and @djmitche. I will do few checks and then hand it to EiC.

prashjha commented 3 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 3 years ago

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

prashjha commented 3 years ago

@whedon check references

whedon commented 3 years ago 
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.3390/s18061714 is OK
- 10.1038/s41569-021-00522-7 is OK
- 10.1038/s41551-020-00640-6 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.02106 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01663 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01867 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01778 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None
prashjha commented 3 years ago

Following the protocols, @arianesasso could you please:

  1. see if these suggestions make sense for your draft:

    • Page 1, line 18: it should be "focuses on"?
    • page 2, line 45, "empower scientists to maintain user ..."?
    • page 2, line 51, "achieve both, devicely ..."?
    • page 2, line 55, "de-identified data, devicely …"?

  2. and once you have updated the draft, can you also do a 'tagged' release of your code

  3. archive the release using zenedo or other methods

Once you are done, I will run few commands and hand your paper to EiC for final decision.

arianesasso commented 3 years ago

Dear @prashjha we made the corrections and we already have a zenodo DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5243494 :).

Cheers Ariane

prashjha commented 3 years ago

Thanks, @arianesasso.

prashjha commented 3 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 3 years ago

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

prashjha commented 3 years ago

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.5243494 as archive

whedon commented 3 years ago

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.5243494 is the archive.

prashjha commented 3 years ago

@whedon check references

whedon commented 3 years ago 
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.3390/s18061714 is OK
- 10.1038/s41569-021-00522-7 is OK
- 10.1038/s41551-020-00640-6 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.02106 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01663 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01867 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01778 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None
prashjha commented 3 years ago

@arianesasso, could you change the title in zenodo archive to match the title of joss paper?

arianesasso commented 3 years ago

@prashjha done :), thank you!

prashjha commented 3 years ago

Perfect. Handing it to EiC.

prashjha commented 3 years ago

@whedon recommend-accept

whedon commented 3 years ago 
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
whedon commented 3 years ago 
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.3390/s18061714 is OK
- 10.1038/s41569-021-00522-7 is OK
- 10.1038/s41551-020-00640-6 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.02106 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01663 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01867 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01778 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None
whedon commented 3 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/2673

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/2673, 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 3 years ago

@whedon accept deposit=true

whedon commented 3 years ago 
Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...
whedon commented 3 years ago

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

whedon commented 3 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/2674
  2. Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03679
  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...

arfon commented 3 years ago

@luciorq, @djmitche – many thanks for your reviews here and to @prashjha for editing their first submission! JOSS relies upon the volunteer effort of people like you and we simply wouldn't be able to do this without you ✨

@arianesasso – your paper is now accepted and published in JOSS :zap::rocket::boom: