Closed editorialbot closed 9 months 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
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88 T=0.20 s (1313.0 files/s, 140140.5 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python 153 5719 5360 11789
reStructuredText 86 338 506 528
Jupyter Notebook 10 0 2743 211
TeX 1 19 0 141
Markdown 5 46 0 102
YAML 3 19 9 93
make 1 4 6 10
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 259 6145 8624 12874
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository
Wordcount for paper.md
is 1796
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1103/physrevb.99.085121 is OK
- 10.1088/1361-648X/aab9c3 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-642-38718-0_14 is OK
- 10.1063/5.0139024 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.033429 is OK
- 10.1038/s41557-020-0544-y is OK
- 10.1002/jcc.1056 is OK
- 10.1063/1.4948778 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:
I created an issue for my review in the repo of the code: https://github.com/NLESC-JCER/QMCTorch/issues/145
@NicoRenaud - are there any outstanding issues that the reviewers have brought up? It looks like the code has been tested, but either the reviewers are still to read the documentation + paper, or it is in some way lacking.
Hey @jarvist ! I am not aware of any issues the reviewers would have brought up. The paper + doc are of course linked here for the reviewers to assess. Let me know if I can do anything to help the process ! thanks
Hi @NicoRenaud ! I have posted issues in the main repository to request changes: https://github.com/NLESC-JCER/QMCTorch/issues/145 https://github.com/NLESC-JCER/QMCTorch/issues/146 I thought you would have received a notification... Next time, I will add a message here. Sorry for the misunderstanding!
@jarvist – looks like we're waiting on the author to make changes at this point? It might be worth giving them a friendly nudge, either here, or even better over email :-)
@arfon @jarvist -https://github.com/NLESC-JCER/QMCTorch/issues/145 and https://github.com/NLESC-JCER/QMCTorch/issues/146 were addressed, but there are still some other bugs to fix, in https://github.com/NLESC-JCER/QMCTorch/issues/149 and https://github.com/NLESC-JCER/QMCTorch/issues/150
Thanks @scemama. Do you have an estimate for when you might get to these?
I am not the developer, I am the reviewer who posted the bug reports. :-)
@NicoRenaud :wave: please can you work to address the issues raised?
Hi @scemama and @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Thanks a lot for your patience ! I haven't found so much time to work on the issue but I have a bit more free time now that I will devote to fixing all of that. I've already started on https://github.com/NLESC-JCER/QMCTorch/issues/150 but I need a bit more time. For the other issue I have to update the doc since ReadTheDoc changed its setup. That shouldn't be too difficult Thanks again for all your input !
Looks good to me now :-)
Thanks @scemama ! @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman I ve made all the changes requested by the reviewers and made a new GH and pypi release. I'm happy to do anything else ! Thanks
My apologies for the late reply, I did not notice this update.
@tonnylou44853 and @AbdAmmar , could you please check that the edits are sufficient, and if so - complete your checklists.
@scemama - you just have one last check box re: performance; may I assume that this is satisfied?
@scemama - you just have one last check box re: performance; may I assume that this is satisfied?
yes, all good!
Hi! Sorry for the late response. The paper looks good to me after the corrections suggested by the other reviewers. However, I did find a few more typos in the docs and a small bug in the code.
Here is the list of issues that I opened/commented: https://github.com/NLESC-JCER/QMCTorch/issues/149 https://github.com/NLESC-JCER/QMCTorch/issues/145#issuecomment-1805958710 https://github.com/NLESC-JCER/QMCTorch/issues/154
Great! Thanks Tonny. @AbdAmmar , unless you particularly want to weigh-in here, we should be able to finish this with Tonny and Scemama's input.
Thanks for the comments @tonnylou44853. I've made all the changes you suggested and merged everything. @jarvist let me know if I can do anything else. Thanks
@editorialbot generate pdf
@editorialbot set <DOI here> as archive
@editorialbot set <version here> as version
@editorialbot generate pdf
@editorialbot check references
and ask author(s) to update as needed@editorialbot recommend-accept
Thank you reviews & contributions @tonnylou44853 , @scemama and @AbdAmmar !
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
@NicoRenaud - a couple of the DOIs in your references are a bit garbled (I think maybe they already contain some https://doi.org/
part of the URL?).
Han2019
and Kessler2021
Thanks @jarvist I've fixed them now
Great! There's a further list of tasks post-review a few messages above ^^^.
The key one is to make a release of the software; and then archive this (usually with Zenodo since you are on GitHub with the software) to get a DOI.
@jarvist I've checked everything and I think it's all done now. I've also made a new pypi release to facilitate install. Let me know if I've missed something. Thanks !
@editorialbot set v0.3.2 as version
Done! version is now v0.3.2
@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.10122190 as archive
Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.10122190
@editorialbot generate pdf
@editorialbot check references
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1103/physrevb.99.085121 is OK
- 10.1088/1361-648X/aab9c3 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-642-38718-0_14 is OK
- 10.1063/5.0139024 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.033429 is OK
- 10.1038/s41557-020-0544-y is OK
- 10.1002/jcc.1056 is OK
- 10.1021/acs.jctc.9b01132 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jcp.2022.111765 is OK
- 10.1063/5.0032836 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.3.043126 is OK
- 10.1002/adts.202000269 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jcp.2019.108929 is OK
- 10.1038/s41467-020-15724-9 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.47.807 is OK
- 10.1063/1.4948778 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:
@NicoRenaud - I have quite a full calendar for today (London time), but will try to fit in a final proof read and cross-check today.
@editorialbot recommend-accept
🎉
Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):
OK DOIs
- 10.1103/physrevb.99.085121 is OK
- 10.1088/1361-648X/aab9c3 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-642-38718-0_14 is OK
- 10.1063/5.0139024 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.033429 is OK
- 10.1038/s41557-020-0544-y is OK
- 10.1002/jcc.1056 is OK
- 10.1021/acs.jctc.9b01132 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jcp.2022.111765 is OK
- 10.1063/5.0032836 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.3.043126 is OK
- 10.1002/adts.202000269 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jcp.2019.108929 is OK
- 10.1038/s41467-020-15724-9 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.47.807 is OK
- 10.1063/1.4948778 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- None
INVALID DOIs
- None
The paper's PDF and metadata files generation produced some warnings that could prevent the final paper from being published. Please fix them before the end of the review process.
\textnormal{MO} = \textnormal{AO} \cdot
^
unexpected control sequence \textnormal
expecting "%", "\\label", "\\tag", "\\nonumber" or whitespace
:wave: @openjournals/bcm-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/4777, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@NicoRenaud<!--end-author-handle-- (Nicolas Renaud) Repository: https://github.com/NLESC-JCER/QMCTorch Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): master Version: v0.3.2 Editor: !--editor-->@jarvist<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @tonnylou44853, @scemama, @AbdAmmar Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.10122190
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
@tonnylou44853 & @scemama & @AbdAmmar, 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 @jarvist 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 ✨
Checklists
📝 Checklist for @tonnylou44853
📝 Checklist for @scemama
📝 Checklist for @AbdAmmar