Closed editorialbot closed 1 year 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.jcp.2011.09.007 is OK
- 10.1063/1.1761178 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.parco.2021.102831 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88 T=6.63 s (720.9 files/s, 202504.7 lines/s)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C 2247 123757 172349 621286
C/C++ Header 453 10557 13171 66169
Python 433 7136 8664 49240
TeX 4 2812 186 33860
Perl 21 3107 1333 29711
C++ 93 5110 6529 26841
Cython 83 4104 1302 21992
reStructuredText 137 9437 8980 19972
Fortran 90 182 3919 7157 16693
CUDA 29 1675 1482 13826
XML 14 389 3 13073
make 855 2219 488 9488
Bourne Shell 23 1149 671 5190
HTML 5 205 6 3130
MATLAB 45 263 762 2825
JavaScript 17 584 329 2303
YAML 11 117 72 1248
C Shell 66 72 154 614
CSS 5 3 0 497
SWIG 2 75 71 467
XSLT 1 30 28 460
GLSL 12 70 85 328
Markdown 6 106 0 300
Objective-C 8 112 159 260
Bourne Again Shell 4 34 61 173
Windows Module Definition 5 7 0 163
diff 7 0 0 153
Lisp 1 0 1 104
Jupyter Notebook 1 0 493 55
Swift 2 25 28 40
DOS Batch 1 8 1 27
CMake 1 5 18 20
INI 1 2 0 18
Java 1 0 0 13
TNSDL 1 0 0 4
JSON 1 0 0 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 4778 177089 224583 940546
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository
π @psanan @kris-rowe, @elauksap, @mbarzegary
Each reviewer will have their own checklist, created with the command @editorialbot generate my checklist
Wordcount for paper.md
is 973
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@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 @kyleniemeyer and @psanan!
I guess I completed my review of DMStag.
I was able to compile the software and to run the testsuite and the tutorials succesfully.
I marked all items in the checklist, including the Performance claims which do not apply in this case.
Being part of a large software (PETSc) the documentation of DMStag inherits parts such as installation instructions, community guidelines, etc. But I cannot think otherwise!
I would definitely recommend DMStag to be accepted for publication.
Best, Pasquale C. Africa
@elauksap Great to hear and thank you so much for your time and attention in reviewing our work!
Thanks @elauksap!
@editorialbot check references
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1016/j.jcp.2011.09.007 is OK
- 10.1016/j.parco.2021.102831 is OK
- 10.1063/1.1761178 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
Hi @kyleniemeyer and @psanan,
I guess generally it's better to open an issue on the software repo for review comments, but since the submission is part of PETSc, I put the comments here instead of opening an issue on the PETSc repo in GitLab.
The software build and testing processes are straightforward as expected (I say βas expectedβ because it's part of PETSc), and the test cases and tutorials of DMStag build and run quite well. They also get installed using make install
, showing that DMStag is fully integrated into PETSc.
The paper is written well. However, I have some suggestions to improve the quality of the submission:
Thanks @mbarzegary for your feedback! This submission sort of dropped off my radar screen somehow.
@psanan, can you take a look and address the above comments?
Sorry for the delay - I will get to it ASAP.
Hi @psanan, just wanted to check on your progress.
Hi @kyleniemeyer , apologies for the delay - as you can tell, I'm struggling to find time to wrap this up (new job). I'm hoping that the paper will be updated soon with with most of what @mbarzegary requested.
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Thanks, @mbarzegary, for the review and apologies for the huge delay! The draft has just been updated and I'll respond to each comment below.
(1) Figures are unnecessarily too big on the paper (each is almost one page). I think reducing the size makes the paper look nicer.
Figures have been reduced to 60% width.
(2) It's not clear how the code is a standalone software and should be distinguished from the underlying PETSc code. I mean, you may add some explanation similar to what you described in the pre-review issue, but in a more straightforward language for non-specialists.
A note at the end of the summary has been added with this information.
(3) In line with the previous comment, this sentence doesnβt make sense: "with DMStag one can write code which will run on any number of MPI ranks". Is this because of PETSc or DMStag? It needs clarification.
This is enabled by the setting that PETSc provides, but of course DMStag has a lot of code written to support this (see e.g. stag3d.c
which includes a lot of logic to build the required local to global maps). This language in the paper is aimed at users who are familiar with staggered grid but perhaps haven't used PETSc before, and might not be aware of this benefit. Clarification has been added to point out that this is true of all PETSc DM implementations.
(4) I think more description should be added to the figures, like what we are looking at, what the size of the domain is, and this kind of things you expect to see in a scientific paper.
Domain sizes and some short other details have been added to the paper.
(5) What should be set for runtime parameters of the examples to reproduce the figures? Is it enough to run them with default values? I think it is not, so it should be mentioned in the examples section.
Command line arguments to generate the images, and some short notes on what is loaded into Paraview, have been added.
(6) I think adding a simple getting started guide can help a lot, like a short one for people with no prior knowledge of PETSc willing to try DMStag examples (people may find this paper later by looking for staggered grid simulations). Itβs not meant to replace PETSc installation guide, but it can provide a short instruction for a minimal PETSc build suitable for running DMStag examples as well as the steps needed to run them (especially for the ones mentioned in the paper). I think it's also nice to mention the solvers and libraries needed to run the examples, such as mumps and umfpack.
As it turns out, the two examples shown here don't require those direct solver libraries! The wave propagation example uses explicit timestepping, and the Stokes example uses an approximate block factorization (ABF) solver using PCFieldSplit with a nested MG solver on the velocity-velocity block, which seems to do fine with a coarse solve using the basic direct solver built into PETSc.
Hopefully the general PETSc installation instructions already give enough info for a minimal build, and that the explicit command line instructions for the examples should now be enough to run the specific examples here, without making this paper too long.
@editorialbot generate pdf
@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 @psanan, there are just a few things with the references in the paper that need to be corrected:
Hi @kyleniemeyer. We have made the changes to the references that you have asked for and I have pushed this to our Gitlab repo.
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@psanan looks good! At this point please archive your software repo (e.g., using Zenodo) and let me know the DOI
Hi @kyleniemeyer - great! The version of PETSc used for this review has been uploaded to Zenodo. The DOI is
10.5281/zenodo.7315282
@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.7315282 as archive
Done! Archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.7315282
@editorialbot recommend-accept
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
:wave: @openjournals/pe-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.
Check final proof :point_right::page_facing_up: Download article
If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/3722, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1190/1.1442147 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jcp.2011.09.007 is OK
- 10.1016/j.parco.2021.102831 is OK
- 10.1063/1.1761178 is OK
- 10.1093/gji/ggac309 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
@editorialbot accept
Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...
π¦π¦π¦ π Tweet for this paper π π¦π¦π¦
π¨π¨π¨ THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! π¨π¨π¨
Here's what you must now do:
Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...
@editorialbot remove @kris-rowe as reviewer
@kris-rowe removed from the reviewers list!
@editorialbot reaccept
Rebuilding paper!
π Paper updated!
New PDF and metadata files :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/3724
Congratulations @psanan on your article's publication in JOSS!
Many thanks to @elauksap and @mbarzegary for reviewing this submission.
: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.04531/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04531)
HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04531">
<img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04531/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>
reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04531/status.svg
:target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04531
This is how it will look in your documentation:
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:
Awesome! Thanks so much for all your attention, @kyleniemeyer, @mbarzegary , and @elauksap!
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@psanan<!--end-author-handle-- (Patrick Sanan) Repository: https://gitlab.com/petsc/petsc Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): psanan/dmstag-joss Version: v3.17.2-562-g2ed6c4b646c Editor: !--editor-->@kyleniemeyer<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @elauksap, @mbarzegary Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.7315282
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
@kris-rowe & @elauksap & @mbarzegary, 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 @kyleniemeyer 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 @mbarzegary
π Checklist for @elauksap