Closed whedon closed 2 years ago
Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @aozorahime, @1mikegrn 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 1191
Software report (experimental):
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88 T=4.54 s (29.7 files/s, 133925.8 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JSON 34 0 0 596261
Python 67 1203 2252 6820
reStructuredText 21 245 360 587
SVG 2 2 2 349
YAML 7 9 20 224
TeX 1 21 0 205
Markdown 2 23 0 70
TOML 1 0 0 6
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 135 1503 2634 604522
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistical information for the repository '546042009554621630cac07e' was
gathered on 2022/02/15.
The following historical commit information, by author, was found:
Author Commits Insertions Deletions % of changes
Kraus 1 74 73 0.48
Kraus, Peter 16 3924 1935 19.10
Nicolas Vetsch 1 544 0 1.77
Peter Kraus 29 3410 1290 15.32
Vetsch, Nicolas 2 1940 169 6.87
krpe 88 6880 4842 38.21
vetschn 44 2983 2617 18.25
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
Kraus, Peter 6626 168.9 3.0 2.81
Nicolas Vetsch 544 100.0 0.9 6.25
Peter Kraus 336 9.9 5.5 12.50
Vetsch, Nicolas 2764 142.5 1.4 6.22
vetschn 5 0.2 3.2 0.00
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.33774/chemrxiv-2021-mh17g is OK
- 10.1002/cctc.202001132 is OK
- 10.1186/1471-2105-13-115 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f is OK
- 10.1007/s11244-020-01380-2 is OK
- 10.1038/sdata.2016.18 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:
👋 @aozorahime, @1mikegrn, @pythonpanda2
Thanks again for volunteering to review this paper. Could you please update us in your ETA? Also, let me know if you have any questions ion the criteria or the process. 🙇♀️
Hi everyone 👋🏻 @galessiorob I'm hoping to get my initial review at least started today, hopefully finished as well.
Overall I feel like this is a very well put together package - most of my critiques are minor things like unused imports and whatnot. I don't have any major concerns for which I would expect any sort of revision. 👍🏻 I also noticed that there's some CI/CD built in from gitlab, I don't use gitlab so I didn't verify any of that, but I was able to easily install the package and run the test suite in a generic docker container, so I'd call it close enough 🤷🏻♂️.
Hi, i am doing this right now. hopefully can finish it tonight or tomorrow @galessiorob
Overall I feel like this is a very well put together package - most of my critiques are minor things like unused imports and whatnot. I don't have any major concerns for which I would expect any sort of revision. 👍🏻 I also noticed that there's some CI/CD built in from gitlab, I don't use gitlab so I didn't verify any of that, but I was able to easily install the package and run the test suite in a generic docker container, so I'd call it close enough 🤷🏻♂️.
We've moved the package from our internal gitlab server back to github fairly recently. The gitlab repo is now archived and only the main repo on here is used. I forgot to remove the gitlab CI files after the migration. The github actions now replicate the CI functionality (with testing of every PR on Windows and Linux), including a docs deployment after every commit to master. If you have any suggestions how to improve this, I'm all ears!
I will start taking a look at this latest on monday.
@galessiorob I don't think I am able to work on the checklist. Please let me know if I have been removed from the review service or if my service is no longer required ? (That would make my life a bit easier. A major funding call opened up this week and now its grant writing season).
@editorialbot list reviewers
Here's the current list of reviewers: https://bit.ly/joss-reviewers
@editorialbot commands
Hello @galessiorob, here are the things you can ask me to do:
# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands
# Add to this issue's reviewers list
@editorialbot add @username as reviewer
# Remove from this issue's reviewers list
@editorialbot remove @username from reviewers
# Get a list of all editors's GitHub handles
@editorialbot list editors
# Assign a user as the editor of this submission
@editorialbot assign @username as editor
# Remove the editor assigned to this submission
@editorialbot remove editor
# Remind an author or reviewer to return to a review after a
# certain period of time (supported units days and weeks)
@editorialbot remind @reviewer in 2 weeks
# Check the references of the paper for missing DOIs
@editorialbot check references
# Perform checks on the repository
@editorialbot check repository
# Adds a checklist for the reviewer using this command
@editorialbot generate my checklist
# Set a value for version
@editorialbot set v1.0.0 as version
# Set a value for archive
@editorialbot set 10.21105/zenodo.12345 as archive
# Set a value for branch
@editorialbot set joss-paper as branch
# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf
# Recommends the submission for acceptance
@editorialbot recommend-accept
# Flag submission with questionable scope
@editorialbot query scope
# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers
# Open the review issue
@editorialbot start review
@editorialbot add @pythonpanda2 as reviewer
I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:
@editorialbot commands
@whedon add @pythonpanda2 as reviewer
My name is now @editorialbot
@arfon running into some issues trying to re-add pythonpanda2
as a reviewer so they can work on their checklist
@editorialbot add @pythonpanda2 to reviewers
@pythonpanda2 is already included in the reviewers list
@pythonpanda2 could you try again and let me know if the issue persists, please? We'd really appreciate having your review 🙏
@galessiorob Thanks a lot. I will have a look at it now.
@galessiorob Not sure if this is an issue due to Safari. I still cannot select the tick option in check list. I am going to try again in Firefox.
@galessiorob I am not able to get the checklist sorted out even after switching to Firefox. I am just going to skip ahead and start the review. Thanks a lot for your patience.
@pythonpanda2 thank you!
@kyleniemeyer could you help us troubleshoot please?
@galessiorob @pythonpanda2 I think the issue is that since we switched to the new editorialbot infrastructure, the checklists at the top no longer work (@arfon is that right?)
Instead, @pythonpanda2 can you comment @editorialbot generate my checklist
? This will generate one for you that you can edit.
@PeterKraus https://github.com/dgbowl/yadg/issues/43
~Alright, I'm losing my mind trying to get the conference proceedings formatted properly for https://github.com/dgbowl/yadg/issues/45. @galessiorob, @kyleniemeyer does either of you know how to do this? The following bibtex doesn't seem to work well:~
@inproceedings{Draxl2020,
title = {{FAIRmat [Presentation]}},
author = {Draxl, Claudia},
crossref = {nfdiconf:20},
langid = {german},
howpublished = {https://www.dfg.de/download/pdf/foerderung/programme/nfdi/nfdi_konferenz_2020/fairmat_abstract.pdf},
file = {C\:\\Users\\krpe\\Zotero\\storage\\5AXGYX4G\\fairmat_abstract.pdf}
}
@proceedings{nfdiconf:20,
title = {{2. NFDI Conference}},
publisher = {{Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft}},
venue = {online},
month = jul,
year = {2020},
langid = german
}
~The title of the conference gets pulled out properly, but publisher
and howpublished
do not.~
I got around the issue by using @unpublished
instead of @inproceedings
and @proceedings
.
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Thank you @PeterKraus
I think my part is done @galessiorob
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Hi @PeterKraus,
We're almost at the finish line! I put together a few edit suggestions and typo corrections in this PR. Please merge as much as you like, and after that, we'll review once more and start the publishing process.
Hi @galessiorob, are there any outstanding issues that I should address? I'm only asking cause I'm giving a talk next week for which it'd be great to have a DOI to point folks to. But if it's not yet ready, I understand!
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@PeterKraus 🙈 I am very sorry I missed this question. I apologize for the delay and hope you have more upcoming talks where you can point the audience to your paper. I'm a Chemical Engineer and this paper is awesome! I'm sure it'll be very well received.
The next thing we need from you is to deposit your software in Zenodo and post the DOI here and the most recent version. After that, we can set the final version, generate a final proof, and have an Editor in Chief do the publishing.
@aozorahime @pythonpanda2 @1mikegrn Thank you so much for lending your expertise and reviewing this paper 🚀
Hi @galessiorob, no worries about the delay. Glad you like the paper/software! I have uploaded all published versions of yadg to https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5894822 (with version 4.0.0 being https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6413504). We're working on getting v4.1.0 out, which will have some of the suggestions from reviewers merged in, but it's not ready yet as we need to finish a couple of features. Do I need to add the DOIs to the paper, or are the links here enough?
Great! I think the links are enough, but I'll ask the editor in chief.
@editorialbot set v4.0.0 as version
Done! version is now v4.0.0
@editorialbot recommend-accept
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@PeterKraus<!--end-author-handle-- (Peter Kraus) Repository: https://github.com/dgbowl/yadg Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v4.0.0 Editor: !--editor-->@galessiorob<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @aozorahime, @1mikegrn, @pythonpanda2 Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.6413504
: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
@aozorahime, @pythonpanda2 & @1mikegrn, 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 @galessiorob 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 @aozorahime
✨ 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 @1mikegrn
✨ 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 @pythonpanda2
✨ 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