Closed editorialbot closed 2 years ago
Hello humans, I'm @editorialbot, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks.
For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:
@editorialbot commands
For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:
@editorialbot generate pdf
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.03.020 is OK
- 10.1016/S0378-7788(00)00114-6 is OK
- 10.1016/j.enbuild.2022.111844 is OK
- 10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108574 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.4682880 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88 T=1.92 s (170.0 files/s, 58386.3 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HTML 11 0 891 61204
JSON 4 0 0 16042
Python 215 3306 7789 13229
XML 15 107 0 4631
reStructuredText 42 756 328 1360
YAML 30 53 810 1334
Markdown 2 14 0 107
TeX 1 6 0 65
TOML 1 6 0 62
Dockerfile 1 18 28 41
DOS Batch 1 8 1 27
INI 1 12 0 25
make 1 4 6 10
CSS 1 1 1 4
Bourne Shell 1 0 0 3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 327 4291 9854 98144
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository
Wordcount for paper.md
is 782
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@olejandro, @noah80, @jasondegraw, I will set a reminder for each of you in three weeks from now to see where you stand with your review at that point in time.
@editorialbot remind @olejandro in three weeks
Reminder set for @olejandro in three weeks
@editorialbot remind @noah80 in three weeks
Reminder set for @noah80 in three weeks
@editorialbot remind @jasondegraw in three weeks
Reminder set for @jasondegraw in three weeks
thank you @timtroendle to organize everything and thank you @jasondegraw, @olejandro and @noah80 for reviewing our submission!
:wave: @olejandro, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).
:wave: @noah80, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).
:wave: @jasondegraw, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder).
π @noah80, @olejandro, @jasondegraw, we are approaching the end of the six-week review period. Can you let us know where you stand with your review and by when you plan to finish?
@timtroendle I was stuck at this point: "Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@kristina-o) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?"
Kristina has not contributed anything to the source code as far as I can tell. She's not listed in the repository at all. How to proceed?
Thanks for the update, @noah80. You can simply leave this box unchecked for now.
We don't require contributions of authors to be code contributions. @kristina-o, can you clarify this point?
Thank you @noah80 for reviewing our submission and @timtroendle for forwarding the question. My contributions to CESAR-P (and also the predecessor CESAR) include the original idea for the tool, contributing to the development of the approach, and supervision of further developments. The current version of CESAR-P was coded by our software engineer Leonie Fierz, she is listed together with me as the main authors. Hope that clarifies my contributions.
@timtroendle I'm working my way through the checklist, currently working on the "Functionality" and "Documentation" sections. I plan on finishing the review this week.
The software described in the paper is intended for modeling and simulation of sets of buildings (urban areas, campuses, etc.) and is implemented in Python. It is well documented and (at least in the files that I looked at) well written. The paper describes the need and features of the software, but I would not recommend acceptance of the paper without revisions. I do not believe these revisions are major revisions. The paper revisions are:
Other items from the checklist:
One thing not really in the checklist:
In summary, there are some things I'd like to see fixed, but in general @kristina-o and coworkers are to be congratulated on this work. I'm happy to follow up on any of the above items by filing issues or whatever else would be desired.
@jasondegraw thank you for the review and the constructive feedback! We will go through it in detail and improve the points you mentioned. Just two points from the technical side:
@LeonieFierz You're most welcome, I'll give the tests another try at some point this week.
@jasondegraw That would be great if you could try to run the tests. To do so, you first need the "development installation" as described in https://cesar-p-core.readthedocs.io/en/latest/development/development-installation.html. With that set up, you can start the tests e.g. with
poetry run pytest tests
Note that some of the tests need EnergyPlus 9.5.0 installed and configured in the environment variables ENERGYPLUS_EXE and ENERGYPLUS_VER (see https://cesar-p-core.readthedocs.io/en/latest/installation.html#energyplus). Tests depending on E+ Installation: tests\test_eplus_adapter\test_eplus_adapter.py, tests\test_eplus_adapter\test_solar_potential.py, tests\test_integration\test_cesar_integration.py, tests\test_model\test_model_pickling.py
And you mentioned that there were a few typos you had to fix in the cesar-p-usage-examples/simple_example. I just tested it again and it run without any adaption on Windows. Do you remember what was the problem if there was any besides the missing TEMP environment variable?
@olejandro, @noah80 : Can you please give us update on how the review is going?
@olejandro, @noah80, are you still working on the review or do you want to be removed as reviewers of this submission?
Working on it @timtroendle. Sorry for the π’ speed!
Ok. Thanks for letting us know, @olejandro !
I've installed the tool a couple of weeks back, but I stalled after that. I'm still interested in the review, but I would suggest a number of improvements to the authors:
I've found the installation instructions here rather confusing: https://cesar-p-core.readthedocs.io/en/latest/development/development-installation.html https://cesar-p-core.readthedocs.io/en/latest/installation.html#installation
It's not clearly described when I would need the development version and for which use the I want the normal install
Unclear if it needs to be exactly Python 3.8 or only newer than 3.8
There could be a batch file that checks if the install succeeded and does everything automatically, but instead I have a long list of things I might want to check
After installing the core library it's completely unclear how to get a first example running and how to play with that.
Do these suggestions make sense? If so, I'd suggest implementing them and that would make it easier for the reviewers to actually get an example running to review the results. The software sounds pretty amazing after all.
@noah80 thank you for starting to review our submission
we will try to state the points you mentioned in more detail.
meanwhile to get you started with playing with the library please have a look on https://github.com/hues-platform/cesar-p-usage-examples where you find different usage examples - please let me know if you have troubles with that (if you are running it on a linux system, please set an environment variable named TEMP pointing to location where temporary files can be created - we fixed that issue already but it is not yet pushed to github)
Thank you @noah80 for reviewing our submission and @timtroendle for forwarding the question. My contributions to CESAR-P (and also the predecessor CESAR) include the original idea for the tool, contributing to the development of the approach, and supervision of further developments. The current version of CESAR-P was coded by our software engineer Leonie Fierz, she is listed together with me as the main authors. Hope that clarifies my contributions.
@kristina-o, could you please clarify contribution of the remaining 3 authors? I've noticed that contributions of two of them are stated in the readme, as well as contributions of 2 other contributors who are not on the authors list. This makes me wonder whether the list of paper authors is appropriate and complete.
@timtroendle @kristina-o while going through my checklist I've opened a few issues in the software repository which I believe must be addressed before accepting the paper.
Dear @olejandro please find below the contributions of the other 3 remaining authors: β’ James Allan has developed and integrated the Graph Database data for Archetypical constructions β’ Sven Eggimann developed a shapefile parser for reading site vertices β’ Natasa Vulic contributed with development testing and support and performed a validation study at national scale. These three parts are important for the functioning of the tool. Additionally all three of them (as well as Leonie Fierz and myself) supported the open access release of CESAR-P, the preparation of the JOSS paper publication and are actively contributing to the further development and testing of CESAR-P. Ricardo Silva has developed an optional feature for CESAR-P but didn't further contribute to the development of the tool, and the main contributions of Aaron Bojarski are not yet implemented in the current open-source version of CESAR-P. Thatβs why the latter two are not included in the list of authors. I hope this clarifies our motivation for defining the list of authors.
@kristina-o, can you let us know by when you think you can address the points mentioned by the three reviewers?
@kristina-o, can you let us know by when you think you can address the points mentioned by the three reviewers?
@timtroendle, sorry for the delay. We are almost done with the updates of the paper. We plan to address all the points of the reviewers by the end of next week
@timtroendle We just released a version 2.3.0 of cesar-p-core as well as an update for cesar-p-usage-examples on github. These version includes the updates addressing the inputs from the reviewers. We now included the paper on the master branch, so the joss-paper branch is no longer the reference for the publication.
@jasondegraw thank you again for your inputs. here a few short notes how we addressed your points:
The "Statement of need and Key features" section has been updated to include target audience and the state of the field (The statement of need section has been updated by adding information on potential users and use cases; A short review on available methodologies and available literature has been included in the Statement of need section. One of the particular strength is now more prominently mentioned, which is the requirement of only few key input parameters to facilitate the process of setting up simulations of buildings and districts.)
We added a "Example" section to the paper as a showcase what you can do with cesar-p-core library
Installation & Example: instructions were updated, TEMP variable no longer needed on Linux systems, Example should run without errors, deprecation warnings fixed, E+ warning fixed (minor issue about missing field which is actually not used, only occured with E+ 8.5)
How to run the tests is documented under https://cesar-p-core.readthedocs.io/en/latest/development/development-commands.html; added information about required environment to run all tests successfully
Contribution section was added to README
Supported platforms added to README
@noah80 thank you again for looking into cesar-p-core. Please note following updates with version 2.3.0:
@olejandro thank you for your review! we addressed the points you created issues for with version 2.3.0. I closed the issues and mentioned what we did shortly in the issue comment.
@LeonieFierz thanks for keeping us updated!
@olejandro @noah80 @jasondegraw could you have a look at these changes and let us know whether they address your comments? Can you please update your checklists accordingly?
@olejandro @noah80 @jasondegraw can you please update us on the status of this review? When would you be able to finish it?
@timtroendle I should be able to go back through and update my checklist within the next couple of days.
I'll take a look this week.
Thanks @noah80 for lettings us know.
@olejandro, what's the timeline on your side?
/ooo August 22 until September 12
π @noah80 and @jasondegraw, can you let us know what the status of your reviews are? We should really finish this up. Can you let us know whether further changes are necessary?
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@kristina-o<!--end-author-handle-- (Kristina Orehounig) Repository: https://github.com/hues-platform/cesar-p-core Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): master Version: v2.3.1 Editor: !--editor-->@timtroendle<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @olejandro, @noah80, @jasondegraw Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.7150137
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
@olejandro & @noah80 & @jasondegraw, your review will be checklist based. Each of you will have a separate checklist that you should update when carrying out your review. First of all you need to run this command in a separate comment to create the checklist:
The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @timtroendle know.
β¨ 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 β¨
Checklists
π Checklist for @olejandro
π Checklist for @noah80
π Checklist for @jasondegraw