Closed whedon closed 6 years ago
Hello human, I'm @whedon. I'm here to help you with some common editorial tasks. @Haacked it looks like you're currently assigned as the reviewer for this paper :tada:.
: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 as 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
Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/blob/joss.00473/joss.00473/10.21105.joss.00473.pdf
@Haacked - please work through the checklist at the top of this issue. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask.
We also have some reviewer guidelines which should help you understand the purpose and scope of the review.
@Haacked, I've noticed that you have skipped some checkboxes above, so I've improved the submission as follows:
Now that I've seen how the paper gets rendered I've also corrected some markdown that worked in my pandoc configuration but has a different behaviour here. While at it I've also changed some text to improve the pagination (a new page happened just before a list) and the diagram of DLL dependencies. I'm not sure how to trigger a recompilation of the PDF.
Have you got any specific guidance for Functionality documentation?
Claudio
@whedon commands
Here are some things you can ask me to do:
# List all of Whedon's capabilities
@whedon commands
# Assign a GitHub user as the reviewer of this submission
@whedon assign @username as reviewer
# List of editor GitHub usernames
@whedon list editors
# List of reviewers together with programming language preferences and domain expertise
@whedon list reviewers
# Change editorial assignment
@whedon assign @username as editor
# Set the software archive DOI at the top of the issue e.g.
@whedon set 10.0000/zenodo.00000 as archive
# Open the review issue
@whedon start review
🚧 🚧 🚧 Experimental Whedon features 🚧 🚧 🚧
# Compile the paper
@whedon generate pdf
@whedon generate pdf
Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/blob/joss.00473/joss.00473/10.21105.joss.00473.pdf
@whedon generate pdf
Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/blob/joss.00473/joss.00473/10.21105.joss.00473.pdf
I've noticed that you have skipped some checkboxes above
@CBenghi, sorry about that. I meant to get to it but I'm at a conference in the Dominican Republic so I've been very busy and didn't get a chance to finish.
I wasn't sure how to check that the DOI references are correct.
Have you got any specific guidance for Functionality documentation?
I mostly looked at the ///
style code comments for public APIs in the code. I think it could use more of them, but it looks like the important stuff is document. Is there API documentation I'm missing?
@Haacked,
my apologies, I had no intention to put pressure on you. There's absolutely no rush, I was only trying to improve the submission so that it would be easier for you to review.
We have no external API docs yet. We have documented the APIs with IntelliSense as you have seen, particularly in the areas where most questions and issues have been received. In our experience this seems Ok for people to start engaging, but I agree that there could be more. I'll check again to see if there are obvious omissions tomorrow.
We have plans to automate the IntelliSense comments on auto-generated classes from the ISO documentation (about 1500 classes and 8000 properties) but it might end up in the next release, and - in a way - it could be considered outside the scope of our contribution, these are only implementations of external schemas.
Regarding the DOI: It's very easy to test that the DOI that we have specified is correct: click on the DOI part of the reference and it'll take you to the a page where you can control the match.
Conversely, ensuring that a registered DOIs do not exist for the others is much harder and I cannot be certain that I've made no mistakes there, but I've spent hours searching with no luck.
I hope you are enjoying the conference.
Best, Claudio
Ok, I checked everything off. Is there anything left for me to do?
Ok, I checked everything off. Is there anything left for me to do?
Great. Thanks @Haacked - just your confirmation that you're happy with the software you've reviewed here.
Once I have that I can proceed with accepting the submission.
@arfon I confirm i’m happy with it.
@CBenghi - At this point could you make an archive of the reviewed software in Zenodo/figshare/other service and update this thread with the DOI of the archive? I can then move forward with accepting the submission.
@arfon, I've issued a release and recorded it with zenodo with DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1095192
@Haacked, very many thanks for your support with the review process. Hugely appreciated.
The very process of submission have made us think hard about the quality of the software including the aspects of community engagement and documentation. Hopefully this practice will spread and we'll get more from the open source movement than ever before. I'd be happy to help as a reviewer in the future, if useful.
Thanks, and keep up the good work!
@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.1095192 as archive
OK. 10.5281/zenodo.1095192 is the archive.
@Haacked - many thanks again for your review here ✨
@CBenghi - your paper is now accepted into JOSS and your DOI is https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00473 ⚡️ 🚀 💥
: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 snippet:
[![DOI](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.00473/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00473)
This is how it will look in your documentation:
We need your help!
Journal of Open Source Software is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: http://joss.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
Submitting author: @CBenghi (Claudio Benghi) Repository: https://github.com/xBimTeam/XbimEssentials Version: 4.0 Editor: @arfon Reviewer: @Haacked Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.1095192
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) 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
@Haacked, 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: http://joss.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @arfon know.
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
paper.md
file include a list of authors with their affiliations?