Closed editorialbot closed 8 months ago
Hello human, 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
Checking the BibTeX entries failed with the following error:
No paper file path
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88 T=0.05 s (695.6 files/s, 66611.5 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python 26 773 554 1888
YAML 2 9 4 61
Markdown 1 21 0 49
reStructuredText 5 30 44 36
DOS Batch 1 8 1 26
TOML 1 2 0 17
make 1 4 7 9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 37 847 610 2086
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository
Failed to discover a Statement of need
section in paper
:warning: An error happened when generating the pdf. Paper file not found.
Hello @ldes89150, thanks for your submission to JOSS. We'll use this pre-review issue to assign an editor and find reviewers; unfortunately, we don't have any editors available to handle your submission right now, so I need to put this on our waitlist until someone can edit it.
In the meantime, any reviewer recommendations you can make would be welcome.
@ldes89150 it looks like the JOSS paper is located on the paper.md
branch, is that correct?
Hi @kyleniemeyer ,
Yes, it is in the paper.md
branch. Do you need me to make any changes?
@editorialbot set paper.md as branch
Done! branch is now paper.md
@editorialbot generate pdf
:warning: An error happened when generating the pdf.
@ldes89150 we just needed to specify the branch, since our editorialbot looks for the paper in the main branch by default.
I'm not quite sure what is causing the error in building the PDF, though.
:warning: An error happened when generating the pdf.
@openjournals/dev @arfon do you understand this error in the PDF build job?
Run bundle exec ruby /home/runner/work/_actions/xuanxu/paper-action/main/get_paper.rb
/home/runner/work/_actions/xuanxu/paper-action/main/vendor/bundle/ruby/3.2.0/gems/commonmarker-0.23.10/lib/commonmarker.rb:38:in `render_doc': text must be a String; got a NilClass! (TypeError)
raise TypeError, "text must be a String; got a #{text.class}!" unless text.is_a?(String)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
from /home/runner/work/_actions/xuanxu/paper-action/main/vendor/bundle/ruby/3.2.0/gems/theoj-1.9.0/lib/theoj/submission.rb:189:in `plaintext'
from /home/runner/work/_actions/xuanxu/paper-action/main/vendor/bundle/ruby/3.2.0/gems/theoj-1.9.0/lib/theoj/submission.rb:100:in `all_metadata'
from /home/runner/work/_actions/xuanxu/paper-action/main/vendor/bundle/ruby/3.2.0/gems/theoj-1.9.0/lib/theoj/submission.rb:78:in `metadata_info'
from /home/runner/work/_actions/xuanxu/paper-action/main/vendor/bundle/ruby/3.2.0/gems/theoj-1.9.0/lib/theoj/submission.rb:57:in `article_metadata'
from /home/runner/work/_actions/xuanxu/paper-action/main/get_paper.rb:25:in `<main>'
Error: Process completed with exit code 1.
Probably the error comes from the branch being named paper.md
. Git creates internal files with the names of every branch so there is a paper.md
file that can confuse the bot if it finds it before the real paper file.
Renaming the branch should fix the error.
@editorialbot set paper as branch
Done! branch is now paper
@editorialbot generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Five most similar historical JOSS papers:
PySDM v1: particle-based cloud modeling package for warm-rain microphysics and aqueous chemistry
Submitting author: @piotrbartman
Handling editor: @dhhagan (Active)
Reviewers: @darothen, @josephhardinee
Similarity score: 0.8052
SkyPy: A package for modelling the Universe
Submitting author: @rrjbca
Handling editor: @arfon (Active)
Reviewers: @cescalara, @rmorgan10
Similarity score: 0.8029
prysm: A Python optics module
Submitting author: @brandondube
Handling editor: @xuanxu (Active)
Reviewers: @aquilesC
Similarity score: 0.8027
s(ound)lab: An easy to learn Python package for designing and running psychoacoustic experiments.
Submitting author: @DrMarc
Handling editor: @arfon (Active)
Reviewers: @hadware, @sneakers-the-rat
Similarity score: 0.7999
beamshapes: a Python package to generate directivity patterns for various sound source models
Submitting author: @thejasvibr
Handling editor: @faroit (Active)
Reviewers: @nils-werner, @hagenw
Similarity score: 0.7998
⚠️ Note to editors: If these papers look like they might be a good match, click through to the review issue for that paper and invite one or more of the authors before considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.
@kyleniemeyer changing the paper.md branch name to paper made the pdf work
Excellent! Thanks @xuanxu for pointing out the issue.
@editorialbot invite @HaoZeke as editor
Invitation to edit this submission sent!
Thanks for the invite @kyleniemeyer. I will be able and willing to edit the submission.
@editorialbot assign @HaoZeke as editor
@editorialbot assign @HaoZeke as editor
Thanks @HaoZeke! FYI, any commands to @editorialbot have to be at the beginning of a comment.
Assigned! @HaoZeke is now the editor
👋 @ldes89150 I will facilitate the review of your paper/software as the editor. The first step will be to find reviewers, so I will start contacting potential reviewers over the weekend.
@kyleniemeyer mentioned this already, but if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers, then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). Feel free to use the list of volunteers here or the authors of the similar papers above.
hi @brandondube @aquilesC @caldarolamartin 👋 would you be interested in and available to review this JOSS submission? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html
If not, could you recommend any potential reviewers?
hi @maurov 👋 would you be interested in and available to review this JOSS submission? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html
If not, could you recommend any potential reviewers?
@HaoZeke I can do a review from a general perspective on code quality, the paper, and so-on. But I do not have access to the hardware devices I believe the package is meant to control, and could not verify the functionality in a strict way
@HaoZeke I can do a review from a general perspective on code quality, the paper, and so-on. But I do not have access to the hardware devices I believe the package is meant to control, and could not verify the functionality in a strict way
That makes sense to me, and thank you for clarifying. It seems like there is a software only component which would be better reviewed and the hardware control aspect would generally be very hard to verify.
@editorialbot add @brandondube as reviewer
@brandondube added to the reviewers list!
hi @maurov 👋 would you be interested in and available to review this JOSS submission? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html
If not, could you recommend any potential reviewers?
@HaoZeke thank you for the invitation. Unfortunately this contribution is out of my field of expertise and I do not know any addition potential reviewers for it.
hi @maurov 👋 would you be interested in and available to review this JOSS submission? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html If not, could you recommend any potential reviewers?
@HaoZeke thank you for the invitation. Unfortunately this contribution is out of my field of expertise and I do not know any addition potential reviewers for it.
Thanks for the prompt response. Hope to see you around on another review later :)
Hi!
Unfortunately I do not have the time for reviewing this paper at the moment.
Best, Martin
Martin Caldarola
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024, 09:43 Rohit Goswami, @.***> wrote:
hi @brandondube https://github.com/brandondube @aquilesC https://github.com/aquilesC @caldarolamartin https://github.com/caldarolamartin 👋 would you be interested in and available to review this JOSS submission? If not, could you recommend any potential reviewers?
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6205#issuecomment-1913079274, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAUGZKTDHXDILQUF66OEOG3YQS44BAVCNFSM6AAAAABBVOZQMCVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTSMJTGA3TSMRXGQ . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>
Hello @HaoZeke ! Thanks for the invite but I am currently busy with another review and won't have enough bandwidth for this one as well. I did a previous review with @sidihamady on a paper by @ktahar
hi @sidihamady and @ktahar 👋 would you be interested in and available to review this JOSS submission? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html
If not, could you recommend any potential reviewers?
Thanks for the prompt response @aquilesC (and for the reviewer suggestions) and @caldarolamartin, hope to see you around on other reviews.
@HaoZeke I can do a review from a general perspective on code quality, the paper, and so-on. But I do not have access to the hardware devices I believe the package is meant to control, and could not verify the functionality in a strict way
Hey @HaoZeke @brandondube ,
Just want to clarify on the hardware part: Most part of the software and majority of the functionalities don't require the hardware. All the hardware related code is in pySLM2/utils
.
And @brandondube Thank you for your interest in reviewing the paper/repo!
Hi @HaoZeke , I can review it. However, with the same remark as the colleague: I do not have access to the hardware part to test this functionality.
@editorialbot generate my checklist
Checklists can only be created once the review has started in the review issue
@editorialbot add @sidihamady as reviewer
Hi @HaoZeke , I can review it. However, with the same remark as the colleague: I do not have access to the hardware part to test this functionality.
Excellent, thank you for the prompt response, testing only the software component will be fine.
@sidihamady added to the reviewers list!
@HaoZeke I can do a review from a general perspective on code quality, the paper, and so-on. But I do not have access to the hardware devices I believe the package is meant to control, and could not verify the functionality in a strict way
Hey @HaoZeke @brandondube ,
Just want to clarify on the hardware part: Most part of the software and majority of the functionalities don't require the hardware. All the hardware related code is in
pySLM2/utils
.And @brandondube Thank you for your interest in reviewing the paper/repo!
@ldes89150, since we haven't found any reviewers for testing the hardware integration, would you be willing to add [not-reviewed]
to the section describing the integration? If so, we can immediately go ahead and start the review.
Any suggestions for other reviewers for the hardware section would also be very welcome.
@editorialbot generate my checklist
Checklists can only be created once the review has started in the review issue
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@ldes89150<!--end-author-handle-- (Chung-You Shih) Repository: https://github.com/QITI/pySLM2 Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): paper Version: v0.1.0 Editor: !--editor-->@HaoZeke<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @brandondube, @sidihamady, @ktahar Managing EiC: Kyle Niemeyer
Status
Status badge code:
Author instructions
Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @ldes89150. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.
@ldes89150 if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). You can search the list of people that have already agreed to review and may be suitable for this submission.
Editor instructions
The JOSS submission bot @editorialbot is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @editorialbot can do for you type: