Closed whedon closed 2 years ago
Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @zingale, @changgoo 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:
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
Wordcount for paper.md
is 836
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1093/mnras/stz653 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stx2611 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stv1437 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/747/1/22 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jcp.2007.07.035 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jcp.2007.09.032 is OK
- 10.1086/421935 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/745/2/139 is OK
- 10.1086/305329 is OK
- 10.1016/s0377-0427(99)00156-9 is OK
- 10.1086/310975 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/107 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/811/2/146 is OK
- 10.1086/426051 is OK
- 10.1086/590238 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-6256/136/1/404 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/131 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/693/1/914 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/704/2/L124 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stu052 is OK
- 10.1038/nature13662 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/783/1/50 is OK
- 10.1038/s41550-018-0566-1 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ab584b is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Software report (experimental):
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88 T=7.24 s (200.5 files/s, 61814.4 lines/s)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C++ 516 32029 31720 184833
C/C++ Header 504 17559 35231 64419
C 127 6463 10161 21534
Python 46 1326 1426 5013
Fortran 77 15 325 3158 4388
IDL 50 1707 2938 4257
Perl 25 900 1755 3580
make 79 857 931 1599
SWIG 7 827 0 1472
reStructuredText 33 697 171 1057
HTML 1 390 1 881
INI 14 248 0 824
Bourne Shell 17 99 114 560
Bourne Again Shell 3 57 170 439
TeX 1 45 0 428
diff 1 34 160 232
MATLAB 1 24 5 134
Markdown 1 16 0 117
C Shell 8 28 3 103
awk 1 1 4 37
Fortran 90 1 6 0 28
CMake 1 5 11 10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 1452 63643 87959 295945
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistical information for the repository '80c01aa4e10b489d5f3ff26a' was
gathered on 2021/09/27.
The following historical commit information, by author, was found:
Author Commits Insertions Deletions % of changes
Offner 1 298269 0 100.00
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
Stella Offner 298269 100.0 0.0 15.55
@soffner, @zingale, @changgoo – This is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on. Thanks again for agreeing to participate!
Please read the "Reviewer instructions & questions" in the first comment above.
Both reviewers have checklists at the top of this thread (in that first comment) with the JOSS requirements. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. There are also links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines.
The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, the reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention openjournals/joss-reviews#3771
so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. In my experience, it is better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.
We aim for the review process to be completed within about 4-6 weeks but please make a start well ahead of this as JOSS reviews are by their nature iterative and any early feedback you may be able to provide to the author will be very helpful in meeting this schedule.
@dfm @soffner How can I create an issue on the ORION2 repository?
Currently, the code is hosted at https://bitbucket.org/orionmhdteam/orion2_release1/src/master/ but the documentation indicates a different url at https://bitbucket.org/orionmhd/orion2/ which is not there yet. Will the repo eventually move to the latter point? I don't know whether the review should be conducted on the final repo or not.
@changgoo: Good points! Ignore my comment about mentioning this issue since ORION2 is on bitbucket - I just posted my usual canned comment, sorry!
Once @soffner clarifies your question about which repository to use, feel free to open issues over on bitbucket if you have an account. If not, you're also welcome to just use this review issue to share your comments. If it's not clear how to open issues on the bitbucket repo, that's something that we'd hope to catch as part of this review.
Thank you @changgoo https://github.com/changgoo: the correct repository is https://bitbucket.org/orionmhdteam/orion2_release1/src/master/
I'll update it in the documentation.
On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 6:35 PM Dan Foreman-Mackey @.***> wrote:
@changgoo https://github.com/changgoo: Good points! Ignore my comment about mentioning this issue since ORION2 is on bitbucket - I just posted my usual canned comment, sorry!
Once @soffner https://github.com/soffner clarifies your question about which repository to use, feel free to open issues over on bitbucket if you have an account. If not, you're also welcome to just use this review issue to share your comments. If it's not clear how to open issues on the bitbucket repo, that's something that we'd hope to catch as part of this review.
— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/3771#issuecomment-928446506, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAFACU5HTVCOTAPBR5OEEGTUED5U5ANCNFSM5E3I6I3A . Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675 or Android https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub.
Still, I only see the Jira Issues tab, which seems to be inactive. In the meantime, I will put some comments here instead.
Based on the checklist here, it might be recommended to rename COPYING
to LICENSE
.
I failed to compile the code. When I run this command
python $ORION2_DIR/setup.py --with-orion2 --no-gui
I first get an error message complaining about undefined variable WITH_CHOMBO
. Copying the following lines within the no_gui
function solves this problem. (or this can be moved outside functions so that defined globally.)
https://bitbucket.org/orionmhdteam/orion2_release1/src/dcd893ca943a350199ded758fd085c95c6c6035e/Tools/Python/ut.py#lines-51
Now, I get an error message
FileNotFoundError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: '/Users/ckim/Sources/orion2_release1//Src/Templates/orion2.ini'
Apparently, there is only pluto.ini
in the folder.
Thanks, Chang-Goo.
LICENSE renaming fixed.
I'm looking into why the issue tracker is not accessible.
It looks like you are trying to compile in the Template directory. Try compiling one of the test problems and compile in that directory. No files should need to be added there.
On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 3:39 PM Chang-Goo Kim @.***> wrote:
I failed compile the code. When I run this command
python $ORION2_DIR/setup.py --with-orion2 --no-gui
I first get an error message complaining about undefined variable WITH_CHOMBO. Copying the following lines within the no_gui function solves this problem. (or this can be moved outside functions so that defined globally.)
Now, I get an error message
FileNotFoundError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: '/Users/ckim/Sources/orion2_release1//Src/Templates/orion2.ini'
Apparently, there is only pluto.ini in the folder.
— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/3771#issuecomment-931647617, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAFACU4DIB6GV27HUY5EJO3UETDGRANCNFSM5E3I6I3A . Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675 or Android https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub.
The issue tracker is enabled for public use now. Let me know if you still can't see it.
On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 4:41 PM Stella Offner @.***> wrote:
Thanks, Chang-Goo.
LICENSE renaming fixed.
I'm looking into why the issue tracker is not accessible.
It looks like you are trying to compile in the Template directory. Try compiling one of the test problems and compile in that directory. No files should need to be added there.
On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 3:39 PM Chang-Goo Kim @.***> wrote:
I failed compile the code. When I run this command
python $ORION2_DIR/setup.py --with-orion2 --no-gui
I first get an error message complaining about undefined variable WITH_CHOMBO. Copying the following lines within the no_gui function solves this problem. (or this can be moved outside functions so that defined globally.)
Now, I get an error message
FileNotFoundError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: '/Users/ckim/Sources/orion2_release1//Src/Templates/orion2.ini'
Apparently, there is only pluto.ini in the folder.
— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/3771#issuecomment-931647617, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAFACU4DIB6GV27HUY5EJO3UETDGRANCNFSM5E3I6I3A . Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675 or Android https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub.
Okay, now I see the issue tracker. Let me create an issue there.
:wave: @changgoo, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).
:wave: @zingale, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).
it's on my radar, but as I noted when I accepted, I'll need a few weeks
@zingale: Yeah, I remember. The bot just sends this message on a timer no matter what. Thanks again!
Sorry for the delayed progress. I've been distracted by other things, but now I'm tying to finish the review. Before deep dive into the software itself, I have a major suggestion about the JOSS paper (and also repository README) in the description of the development history. As the code documentation describes, the ORION2 code is largely based on the PLUTO code base. It adopts a large portion of the PLUTO code, while the implementation of a new AMR MHD module using the constraint transport method and subsequent developments distinguishes the ORION2 code from the PLUTO code. Since the code repository doesn't have such information, it would be necessary to clarify the development history and the contribution of the ORION2 code in the JOSS paper.
Although the PLUTO code is a (kind of) public code, it requires a registration step to get the source code. It is unclear to me whether it is okay to make ORION2 fully open-source given the policy adopted in PLUTO. If the ORION2 team already obtained the consent, it may also be good to be clarified.
@whedon generate pdf
On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 2:22 PM whedon @.***> wrote:
Submitting author: @soffner https://github.com/soffner (Stella Offner http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1252-9916) Repository: https://bitbucket.org/orionmhdteam/orion2_release1/src/master/ https://bitbucket.org/orionmhdteam/orion2_release1/src/master/ Version: v1.0.0 Editor: @dfm https://github.com/dfm Reviewer: @zingale https://github.com/zingale, @changgoo https://github.com/changgoo Archive: Pending
⚠️ JOSS reduced service mode ⚠️
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 https://blog.joss.theoj.org/2020/05/reopening-joss. Status
[image: status] https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c8c824a316e16f6929ad490ee93d9f5d
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 https://bitbucket.org/orionmhdteam/orion2_release1/src/master/ 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
@zingale https://github.com/zingale & @changgoo https://github.com/changgoo, 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 @dfm https://github.com/dfm 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 @zingale https://github.com/zingale
✨ 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 https://bitbucket.org/orionmhdteam/orion2_release1/src/master/. ✨ Conflict of interest
- I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy https://github.com/openjournals/joss/blob/master/COI.md 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
- I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct https://joss.theoj.org/about#code_of_conduct.
General checks
- Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url https://bitbucket.org/orionmhdteam/orion2_release1/src/master/?
- License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical software license?
- Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author @.*** https://github.com/soffner) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
- Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html#substantial-scholarly-effort
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
- 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.
- 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 functionality of the software can be verified?
- 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
- Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
- A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of Need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
- State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
- 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 https://rmarkdown.rstudio.com/authoring_bibliographies_and_citations.html#citation_syntax ?
Review checklist for @changgoo https://github.com/changgoo
✨ 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 https://bitbucket.org/orionmhdteam/orion2_release1/src/master/. ✨ Conflict of interest
- I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy https://github.com/openjournals/joss/blob/master/COI.md 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
- I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct https://joss.theoj.org/about#code_of_conduct.
General checks
- Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url https://bitbucket.org/orionmhdteam/orion2_release1/src/master/?
- License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical software license?
- Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author @.*** https://github.com/soffner) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
- Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html#substantial-scholarly-effort
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
- 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.
- 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 functionality of the software can be verified?
- 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
- Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
- A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of Need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
- State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
- 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 https://rmarkdown.rstudio.com/authoring_bibliographies_and_citations.html#citation_syntax ?
— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/3771, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAFACU3UFUMNO7RDVBWTM23UEC757ANCNFSM5E3I6I3A . Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675 or Android https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub.
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@whedon generate pdf
On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 1:49 PM Stella Offner @.***> wrote:
@whedon generate pdf
On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 2:22 PM whedon @.***> wrote:
Submitting author: @soffner https://github.com/soffner (Stella Offner http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1252-9916) Repository: https://bitbucket.org/orionmhdteam/orion2_release1/src/master/ https://bitbucket.org/orionmhdteam/orion2_release1/src/master/ Version: v1.0.0 Editor: @dfm https://github.com/dfm Reviewer: @zingale https://github.com/zingale, @changgoo https://github.com/changgoo Archive: Pending
⚠️ JOSS reduced service mode ⚠️
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 https://blog.joss.theoj.org/2020/05/reopening-joss. Status
[image: status] https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c8c824a316e16f6929ad490ee93d9f5d
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 https://bitbucket.org/orionmhdteam/orion2_release1/src/master/ 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
@zingale https://github.com/zingale & @changgoo https://github.com/changgoo, 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 @dfm https://github.com/dfm 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 @zingale https://github.com/zingale
✨ 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 https://bitbucket.org/orionmhdteam/orion2_release1/src/master/. ✨ Conflict of interest
- I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy https://github.com/openjournals/joss/blob/master/COI.md 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
- I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct https://joss.theoj.org/about#code_of_conduct.
General checks
- Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url https://bitbucket.org/orionmhdteam/orion2_release1/src/master/?
- License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical software license?
- Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author @.*** https://github.com/soffner) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
- Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html#substantial-scholarly-effort
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
- 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.
- 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 functionality of the software can be verified?
- 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
- Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
- A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of Need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
- State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
- 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 https://rmarkdown.rstudio.com/authoring_bibliographies_and_citations.html#citation_syntax ?
Review checklist for @changgoo https://github.com/changgoo
✨ 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 https://bitbucket.org/orionmhdteam/orion2_release1/src/master/. ✨ Conflict of interest
- I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy https://github.com/openjournals/joss/blob/master/COI.md 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
- I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct https://joss.theoj.org/about#code_of_conduct.
General checks
- Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url https://bitbucket.org/orionmhdteam/orion2_release1/src/master/?
- License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical software license?
- Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author @.*** https://github.com/soffner) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
- Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html#substantial-scholarly-effort
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
- 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.
- 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 functionality of the software can be verified?
- 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
- Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
- A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of Need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
- State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
- 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 https://rmarkdown.rstudio.com/authoring_bibliographies_and_citations.html#citation_syntax ?
— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/3771, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAFACU3UFUMNO7RDVBWTM23UEC757ANCNFSM5E3I6I3A . Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675 or Android https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub.
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@changgoo: Thanks for bringing up this point. We have added PLUTO citations to the documentation and JOSS paper as well as made the connection between PLUTO and ORION2 more explicit. Note that PLUTO is released under the GNU public license. The download link you sent appears to be so that the PLUTO developers can collect information on users. It is not related to licensing.
On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 12:48 PM Chang-Goo Kim @.***> wrote:
Sorry for the delayed progress. I've been distracted by other things, but now I'm tying to finish the review. Before deep dive into the software itself, I have a major suggestion about the JOSS paper (and also repository README) in the description of the development history. As the code documentation describes, the ORION2 code is largely based on the PLUTO code base. It adopts a large portion of the PLUTO code, while the implementation of a new AMR MHD module using the constraint transport method and subsequent developments distinguishes the ORION2 code from the PLUTO code. Since the code repository doesn't have such information, it would be necessary to clarify the development history and the contribution of the ORION2 code in the JOSS paper.
Although the PLUTO code is a (kind of) public code, it requires a registration http://plutocode.ph.unito.it/download.html to get the source code. It is unclear to me whether it is okay to make ORION2 fully open-source given the policy adopted in PLUTO. If the ORION2 team already obtained the consent, it may also be good to be clarified.
— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/3771#issuecomment-963466862, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAFACU6A2U3FF5GJ3F2DBTLULALRBANCNFSM5E3I6I3A . Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675 or Android https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub.
I've tested the code using a few examples included in the code. Given the complexity and multi-functionality of RMHD codes like this, I cannot check all functionalities and performances claimed. I simply checked off these given that there are published journal papers regarding each module (and extensive demonstrations in the document). The only remaining check is Automated tests.
Automated tests are extremely useful. I'm pretty sure that enabling a full regression suite for the code like this is not easy (almost impossible unless it is designed and developed in that way). However, it will still be possible to have a simple regression test suite for basic functionalities. For example, linear wave convergence tests can be added to verify basic functionality after the installation. I cannot recommend this as a mandatory requirement before the acceptance as it will still be a significant amount of work. But, it is highly recommended in the long run.
There are a few suggestions for the repository management. Again, these are not mandatory fixes for acceptance as it doesn't hurt the functionality of the code. But, this is recommended to make the code more user-friendly and accessible.
git status
output. I recommend to add some of rules in .gitignore
(e.g., *_F.H
)..F
files). This makes it very difficult to see changes using git diff
. I understand that it is recommended to use a separate directory for running actual problems. But, it is still recommended to remove unnecessary files from the repository.@dfm Other than these, I'm happy to sign off on the review.
👋 @zingale: I wanted to ping to make sure that this is still on your radar. I know that this is a busy time of year, but keep us posted and let me know if you run into any issues. Thanks!
yep, I'm on it. Should be done this week
Awesome - thank you!!
I have a question about the git repo on bitbucket. The name is "orion_release1", and looking at the git history, it seems like this repo was only created for the purposes of doing the JOSS paper.
So, is this the actual repo where the code is being developed? or is the development hidden from the public and there will be periodic drops of the code to new repos?
created docs issue: https://bitbucket.org/orionmhdteam/orion2_release1/issues/2/joss-review
are there any plans to host the docs on a webserver (readthedocs? or something else?). This would make it easier for users.
the orion-users group is private by default -- you should consider making the past posts public so new users can read past messages and understand the development community without having to ask permission to join.
created dependency issue https://bitbucket.org/orionmhdteam/orion2_release1/issues/3/joss-review-add-csh-as-dependency
I have not been able to build Chombo because of an interface mismatch: https://bitbucket.org/orionmhdteam/orion2_release1/issues/4/joss-review-chombo-compilation-error
I've tested the code using a few examples included in the code. Given the complexity and multi-functionality of RMHD codes like this, I cannot check all functionalities and performances claimed. I simply checked off these given that there are published journal papers regarding each module (and extensive demonstrations in the document). The only remaining check is Automated tests.
Automated tests are extremely useful. I'm pretty sure that enabling a full regression suite for the code like this is not easy (almost impossible unless it is designed and developed in that way). However, it will still be possible to have a simple regression test suite for basic functionalities. For example, linear wave convergence tests can be added to verify basic functionality after the installation. I cannot recommend this as a mandatory requirement before the acceptance as it will still be a significant amount of work. But, it is highly recommended in the long run.
There are a few suggestions for the repository management. Again, these are not mandatory fixes for acceptance as it doesn't hurt the functionality of the code. But, this is recommended to make the code more user-friendly and accessible.
- After compiling the Chombo library, a huge number of untracked files appear, messing up
git status
output. I recommend to add some of rules in.gitignore
(e.g.,*_F.H
).- There are many tracked files that are frequently overwritten under Test_Prob/ (e.g., some
.F
files). This makes it very difficult to see changes usinggit diff
. I understand that it is recommended to use a separate directory for running actual problems. But, it is still recommended to remove unnecessary files from the repository.@dfm Other than these, I'm happy to sign off on the review.
I would also like to understand the testing strategy.
The JOSS paper should address "State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?"
Can the author add a section explaining how Orion2 compares and differs from other open AMR MHD codes in terms of capability, performance, community, etc.
@zingale thank you for your comments and reviewing the code.
1.
I have a question about the git repo on bitbucket. The name is "orion_release1", and looking at the git history, it seems like this repo was only created for the purposes of doing the JOSS paper.
To some degree yes. ORION2 has some code (the FLD radiative transfer code that was developed at LNL), which is not allowed to be released (doesn't matter that other public FLD versions exist at this point). So we have to strip that out in order to release it.
2.
So, is this the actual repo where the code is being developed? or is the development hidden from the public and there will be periodic drops of the code to new repos?
We expect some development to take place in this repository. We also expect to migrate additional functionality from the private repository at a later date.
We do not currently have plans to make a readthedocs page, but we agree that it would be easier than the current PDF documentation.
Regarding the orion-groups. The group and ability to join was previously public. We have changed a setting that I think allows anyone to see google content. Admittedly there is not much there to see. We also have a private group-developers list, which we've been using up until now (all the users to date are also developers).
Automated testing was a large topic of discussion over the years and we considered different options. However, we decided to stick with the individual, separate test problems, since implementation of automated testing that worked generally across different systems was complex.
https://bitbucket.org/orionmhdteam/orion2_release1/issues/4/joss-review-chombo-compilation-error
created dependency issue https://bitbucket.org/orionmhdteam/orion2_release1/issues/4/joss-review-chombo-compilation-error https://bitbucket.org/orionmhdteam/orion2_release1/issues/3/joss-review-add-csh-as-dependency
We will update these tickets. Many of us compile Chombo with bash (i.e., without tcsh/csh). What is it you're seeing that suggests this needs to be a requirement?
Note that Chombo seriously needs to be updated to work with modern compilers. This is a major shortcoming of this library! The second issue is precisely caused by having too modern a compiler. After gcc10, stricter type-checking was employed, and the original authors of Chombo were quite sloppy in their implementation of the library. On the one hand, you might argue that the compiler is being too pedantic, i.e., that 0 is 0 for any plain-old data type. On the other hand, you might argue that the Chombo authors should have been more careful. This problem can be fixed in two ways: you can either add a compiler flag to convert this "error" into a mere warning, since it isn't really that serious, or else you can update the "0" in the call to Lapack's dgemm to the more appropriate value for the expected data type, which is "0.d0" as in the first line of each error message. The best way to do that is to replace "0" with "zero", which will get replaced during the pre-processing step.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/3771#issuecomment-981165812, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAFACU3JKZHXM5LBIFT232LUOKVVBANCNFSM5E3I6I3A . Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675 or Android https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub.
okay, I did a PR to fix the GCC 11 compilation issues: https://bitbucket.org/orionmhdteam/orion2_release1/pull-requests/2
I understand the issue of export control with rad transport (we had a similar experience), so that explanation is good by me.
I am going to defer to @dfm about the testing requirement for JOSS
The JOSS checklist asks to verify performance claims made in the paper. The paper says:
The MHD code with AMR scales efficiently to many tens of thousands of cores.
I am not going to do a scaling test, but you should provide a reference for this statement.
I am going to defer to @dfm about the testing requirement for JOSS
We encourage, but don't require automated testing. There should at least be some clearly documented example scripts with the expected output clearly and quantitatively defined.
okay thanks @dfm. I think then we should just ask that a manual way to compare a run against expected output in some sense is provided.
In that case, I think what we have in the release meets the requirements -- many of the test problems have python scripts that compare the output with an expected solution and generate a fail message if agreement fails.
On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 11:05 AM Michael Zingale @.***> wrote:
okay thanks @dfm https://github.com/dfm. I think then we should just ask that a manual way to compare a run against expected output in some sense is provided.
— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/3771#issuecomment-986059313, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAFACUYWLHNMDGYDWBN6DA3UPJC7DANCNFSM5E3I6I3A . Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675 or Android https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub.
@whedon generate pdf
On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 2:22 PM whedon @.***> wrote:
Submitting author: @soffner https://github.com/soffner (Stella Offner http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1252-9916) Repository: https://bitbucket.org/orionmhdteam/orion2_release1/src/master/ https://bitbucket.org/orionmhdteam/orion2_release1/src/master/ Version: v1.0.0 Editor: @dfm https://github.com/dfm Reviewer: @zingale https://github.com/zingale, @changgoo https://github.com/changgoo Archive: Pending
⚠️ JOSS reduced service mode ⚠️
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 https://blog.joss.theoj.org/2020/05/reopening-joss. Status
[image: status] https://joss.theoj.org/papers/c8c824a316e16f6929ad490ee93d9f5d
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 https://bitbucket.org/orionmhdteam/orion2_release1/src/master/ 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
@zingale https://github.com/zingale & @changgoo https://github.com/changgoo, 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 @dfm https://github.com/dfm 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 @zingale https://github.com/zingale
✨ 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 https://bitbucket.org/orionmhdteam/orion2_release1/src/master/. ✨ Conflict of interest
- I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy https://github.com/openjournals/joss/blob/master/COI.md 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
- I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct https://joss.theoj.org/about#code_of_conduct.
General checks
- Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url https://bitbucket.org/orionmhdteam/orion2_release1/src/master/?
- License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical software license?
- Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author @.*** https://github.com/soffner) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
- Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html#substantial-scholarly-effort
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
- 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.
- 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 functionality of the software can be verified?
- 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
- Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
- A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of Need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
- State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
- 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 https://rmarkdown.rstudio.com/authoring_bibliographies_and_citations.html#citation_syntax ?
Review checklist for @changgoo https://github.com/changgoo
✨ 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 https://bitbucket.org/orionmhdteam/orion2_release1/src/master/. ✨ Conflict of interest
- I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy https://github.com/openjournals/joss/blob/master/COI.md 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
- I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct https://joss.theoj.org/about#code_of_conduct.
General checks
- Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url https://bitbucket.org/orionmhdteam/orion2_release1/src/master/?
- License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical software license?
- Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author @.*** https://github.com/soffner) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
- Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html#substantial-scholarly-effort
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
- 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.
- 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 functionality of the software can be verified?
- 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
- Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
- A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of Need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
- State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
- 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 https://rmarkdown.rstudio.com/authoring_bibliographies_and_citations.html#citation_syntax ?
— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/3771, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAFACU3UFUMNO7RDVBWTM23UEC757ANCNFSM5E3I6I3A . Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675 or Android https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub.
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
I believe we have addressed the last two issues raised by @zingale:
Thanks!
On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 5:10 PM Michael Zingale @.***> wrote:
The JOSS paper should address "State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?"
Can the author add a section explaining how Orion2 compares and differs from other open AMR MHD codes in terms of capability, performance, community, etc.
— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/3771#issuecomment-981170509, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAFACU3CV3WER2VI647DO63UOKZEZANCNFSM5E3I6I3A . Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675 or Android https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub.
thanks. I'm happy with things now. Thanks for merging my PRs.
@dfm I am happy with this and checked all my boxes.
Submitting author: @soffner (Stella Offner) Repository: https://bitbucket.org/orionmhdteam/orion2_release1/src/master/ Version: 1.0 Editor: @dfm Reviewer: @zingale, @changgoo Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.5791188
: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 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) 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
@zingale & @changgoo, 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.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @dfm 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 @zingale
✨ 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 @changgoo
✨ 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