search

openjournals / joss-reviews

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

[REVIEW]: pypbomb: A Python package with tools for the design of detonation tubes #4143

Closed whedon closed 2 years ago

whedon commented 2 years ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@cartemic<!--end-author-handle-- (Mick Carter) Repository: https://github.com/cartemic/pypbomb/ Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v1.1.0 Editor: !--editor-->@kyleniemeyer<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @mefuller, @wenkailiang Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.6558618

: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/288143539a2e4f5ab1b83cbee4e17052"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/288143539a2e4f5ab1b83cbee4e17052/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/288143539a2e4f5ab1b83cbee4e17052/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/288143539a2e4f5ab1b83cbee4e17052)

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

@mefuller & @wenkailiang, 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 @kyleniemeyer 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 @mefuller

✨ 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 @wenkailiang

✨ 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 2 years ago

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @mefuller, @wenkailiang 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 2 years ago

Wordcount for paper.md is 1318

whedon commented 2 years ago 
Software report (experimental):

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.06 s (582.9 files/s, 120913.9 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          12            664           1211           3345
Jupyter Notebook                 1              0            787            364
TeX                              1             24              0            197
YAML                             3             12             21             90
reStructuredText                11             60             68             70
Markdown                         3             23              0             59
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
make                             1              4              7              9
CSS                              1              0              0              3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            34            795           2095           4163
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statistical information for the repository '255f002e6ef9ee6edd230313' was
gathered on 2022/02/10.
The following historical commit information, by author, was found:

Author                     Commits    Insertions      Deletions    % of changes
Carter                          35          3513           1531           11.38
Mick Carter                    140         21285          17979           88.62

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
Mick Carter                5220           24.5         11.5                7.95
whedon commented 2 years ago

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

whedon commented 2 years ago 
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1115/1.3089497 is OK
- 10.1016/j.pecs.2007.11.002 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.1174508 is OK
- 10.2514/1.43659 is OK
- 10.1017/S0022112007005046 is OK
- 10.1007/s00348-017-2420-0 is OK
- 10.2514/6.2015-1350 is OK
- 10.1016/j.combustflame.2010.04.011 is OK
- 10.1016/j.proci.2010.07.071 is OK
- 10.2514/6.2016-1198 is OK
- 10.1016/j.combustflame.2014.11.026 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None
kyleniemeyer commented 2 years ago

👋 @wenkailiang @mefuller @cartemic

cartemic commented 2 years ago

Thanks @wenkailiang and @mefuller for agreeing to review, and @kyleniemeyer for agreeing to edit!

kyleniemeyer commented 2 years ago

Hi @mefuller and @wenkailiang, I just wanted to check in on the status of your reviews. Do you think you will be able to complete them soon?

mefuller commented 2 years ago

I completely forgot about this. I will aim to look at it and hopefully get it done over the weekend

kyleniemeyer commented 2 years ago

Hi @mefuller, did you have a chance to work on your review?

@wenkailiang can you give an update on your progress? Thanks

mefuller commented 2 years ago

@kyleniemeyer you wrote as I am working on it (which is still no excuse for my tardiness)

kyleniemeyer commented 2 years ago

@mefuller thanks!

mefuller commented 2 years ago

I have requested some updates to the documentation/clarifications so that I can better test and examine the software, but this looks to be a very good submission

kyleniemeyer commented 2 years ago

@mefuller great, thank you! Is your reviewer checklist at the top up to date? (Feel free to leave anything unchecked for now as you wait for those issues to be resolved.)

kyleniemeyer commented 2 years ago

@cartemic Can you address @mefuller's comments (left as issues https://github.com/cartemic/pypbomb/issues/7 and https://github.com/cartemic/pypbomb/issues/8) and let me know here when those are resolved?

cartemic commented 2 years ago

@kyleniemeyer Sure thing! I'll have a look and get started on those issues tonight after work. Thanks @mefuller!

wenkailiang commented 2 years ago

@kyleniemeyer Sorry about the late response. I will update my comments here asap.

wenkailiang commented 2 years ago

@kyleniemeyer @cartemic This is a nice contribution to the community. The package could be very useful for the design of detonation tube. Just a few comments:

wenkailiang commented 2 years ago

@kyleniemeyer Also, I haved updated the checklist. Thanks.

kyleniemeyer commented 2 years ago

@wenkailiang thank you! I noticed a number of unchecked boxes still, that your comments just now do not address. Do you have concerns in those areas too?

wenkailiang commented 2 years ago

@kyleniemeyer These are just items I'm not very sure about, so I just left them unchecked, not meaning I have concerns in these. Thanks.

cartemic commented 2 years ago

@wenkailiang thanks for your comments! I've opened an issue to include equations for DDT run-up estimation in the paper (cartemic/pypbomb#10).

Non-ideal effects are not currently within the scope of pypbomb as presented here, however they could be included in a future version by exposing the option for phase specification to the user in more places (e.g. the sd module). Currently phase specification within pypbomb is only used in DDT run-up calculations, and the inclusion there is due to the use of viscosity in the run-up equation used for blockage ratios less than 30%.

wenkailiang commented 2 years ago

@cartemic Thank you for the responses!

cartemic commented 2 years ago

@kyleniemeyer #10 is resolved.

cartemic commented 2 years ago

@kyleniemeyer #7 is resolved.

mefuller commented 2 years ago

@kyleniemeyer @cartemic I am satisfied with the recent changes and have no further major concerns

cartemic commented 2 years ago

@mefuller @wenkailiang thank you for your time and input!

kyleniemeyer commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

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

kyleniemeyer commented 2 years ago

Hi @cartemic, we are nearly ready to accept! Just a few small items:

  1. Can you add commas after the uses of "e.g." in the paper? In other words, "e.g.,".

  2. Could you add a bit more detail to the README? Since that is the effectively the landing page for people, I think it should have a bit more basic info about the project, simple installation instructions (not for developers, just pip/conda users), and perhaps a very simple example usage.

Once you have done these things, please archive the software repository on Zenodo or Figshare and let me know the DOI here.

cartemic commented 2 years ago

@kyleniemeyer DOI is 10.5281/zenodo.6558618

kyleniemeyer commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot generate pdf

kyleniemeyer commented 2 years ago

@cartemic can you clean up the Zenodo metadata? At minimum, please make the authors match the paper

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

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

cartemic commented 2 years ago

@kyleniemeyer sorry I didn't catch that last night. Metadata has been updated.

kyleniemeyer commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot set archive as 10.5281/zenodo.6558618

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:

@editorialbot commands

kyleniemeyer commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.6558618 as archive

editorialbot commented 2 years ago

Done! Archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.6558618

kyleniemeyer commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot commented 2 years ago 
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
editorialbot commented 2 years ago 
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1115/1.3089497 is OK
- 10.1016/j.pecs.2007.11.002 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.1174508 is OK
- 10.2514/1.43659 is OK
- 10.1017/S0022112007005046 is OK
- 10.1007/s00348-017-2420-0 is OK
- 10.2514/6.2015-1350 is OK
- 10.1016/j.combustflame.2010.04.011 is OK
- 10.1016/j.proci.2010.07.071 is OK
- 10.2514/6.2016-1198 is OK
- 10.1016/j.combustflame.2014.11.026 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None
editorialbot commented 2 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/3218

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/3218, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

kyleniemeyer commented 2 years ago

@editorialbot accept

editorialbot commented 2 years ago 
Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...
editorialbot commented 2 years ago

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

editorialbot commented 2 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/3219
  2. Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04143
  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...

kyleniemeyer commented 2 years ago

Congratulations @cartemic on your paper's publication in JOSS!

Many thanks to @mefuller and @wenkailiang for reviewing this submission.

editorialbot commented 2 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.04143/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04143)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04143">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04143/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04143/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04143

This is how it will look in your documentation:

DOI

We need your help!

The 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:

cartemic commented 2 years ago

Awesome! Thanks @kyleniemeyer @wenkailiang @mefuller :)