search

openjournals / joss-reviews

Reviews for the Journal of Open Source Software
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
694 stars 36 forks source link

[REVIEW]: REHO: A Decision Support Tool for Renewable Energy Communities #6734

Open editorialbot opened 1 month ago

editorialbot commented 1 month ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@DorsanL<!--end-author-handle-- (Dorsan Lepour) Repository: https://github.com/IPESE/REHO Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v1.0.2 Editor: !--editor-->@mbarzegary<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @nmstreethran, @willu47, @hgandhi2411 Archive: Pending

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4bf4fbb28866af6b0c44a2a4309f5413"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4bf4fbb28866af6b0c44a2a4309f5413/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4bf4fbb28866af6b0c44a2a4309f5413/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4bf4fbb28866af6b0c44a2a4309f5413)

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

@nmstreethran & @willu47 & @hgandhi2411, 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:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @mbarzegary 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 @nmstreethran

📝 Checklist for @hgandhi2411

📝 Checklist for @willu47

editorialbot commented 1 month 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
editorialbot commented 1 month ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.19 s (509.1 files/s, 284245.3 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSV                             17              0              0          30290
Python                          51           2290           2247           7977
SVG                              7              1              5           7656
reStructuredText                 9            666            972            649
TeX                              2             51              0            580
DOS Batch                        1             29              1            212
make                             1             28              6            143
YAML                             5             14             19            136
Markdown                         2             49              0            122
INI                              2              0              0             14
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            97           3128           3250          47779
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

    52  Dorsan Lepour
    35  Joseph
    26  Cédric
    16  Gauthier Limpens
    12  Nicolas Ghuys
    11  gouveia
     7  Cédric Terrier
     4  loustau
     3  jcferrei
     2  Catarina Braz
     2  JosephLoustau
     1  DorsanL
     1  Gauthier LIMPENS
editorialbot commented 1 month ago

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1700

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

editorialbot commented 1 month ago

License info:

✅ License found: Apache License 2.0 (Valid open source OSI approved license)

editorialbot commented 1 month ago 
Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.09.164 is OK
- 10.2760/180576 is OK
- 10.1016/j.energy.2019.03.184 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.04370 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.10697424 is OK
- 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.06.033 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.06275 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.05519 is OK
- 10.26868/25222708.2017.183 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.596235 is OK
- 10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113729 is OK
- 10.1016/j.segy.2021.100007 is OK
- 10.1016/j.rser.2017.07.030 is OK
- 10.1016/j.energy.2020.117792 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.04261 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00825 is OK
- 10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.12.037 is OK
- 10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.11.001 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.04799 is OK
- 10.1080/19401493.2013.765506 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1016/j.futures.2015.01.002 may be a valid DOI for title: Exploring the Transition Potential of Renewable En...
- 10.1016/j.rser.2019.109518 may be a valid DOI for title: Renewable Energy Communities as ‘Socio-Legal Insti...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: QBuildings: The Comprehensive Guide
- No DOI given, and none found for title: EnergyPlus™
- No DOI given, and none found for title: THERMOS - Thermal Energy Resource Modelling and Op...

INVALID DOIs

- None
editorialbot commented 1 month ago

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

mbarzegary commented 1 month ago

👋🏼 @nmstreethran @willu47 @hgandhi2411 this is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.

As a reviewer, the first step is to create a checklist for your review by entering

@editorialbot generate my checklist

as the top of a new comment in this thread.

These checklists contain the JOSS requirements. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. The first comment in this thread also contains links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines.

The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, the reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6734 so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread.

We aim for reviews to be completed within about 2-4 weeks. Please feel free to ping me (@mbarzegary) if you have any questions/concerns.

mbarzegary commented 1 month ago

@DorsanL this is where the review takes place. Please keep an eye out for comments here from the reviewers, as well as any issues opened by them on your software repository. I recommend you aim to respond to these as soon as possible, and you can address them straight away as they come in if you like, to ensure we do not loose track of the reviewers.

To start with, please fix the DOI issue of some of your references reported by the editorial bot above.

nmstreethran commented 1 month ago

Review checklist for @nmstreethran

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

hgandhi2411 commented 1 month ago

Review checklist for @hgandhi2411

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

DorsanL commented 1 month ago

Dear all,

Thank you for your interest in our REHO tool and for taking the time and effort to review it.

I have been attentive to the points raised here, as well as to the various issues that have already been opened by hgandhi2411 and nmstreethran.

Here are a few specific updates:

Regarding these issues (and the next that will come), is it preferred that reviewers close them themselves or shall I take care of it?

More generally, I devoted time to clean and refactor many parts of the code, to be as compliant as possible with PEP8 standards. Files, classes and functions have sometimes been renamed and their DocStrings enriched, to improve the overall clarity of the tool.

Two other points to mention regarding the examples:

All these recent changes have been pushed to the main, and a version 1.1.0 is available on PyPI.

DorsanL commented 1 month ago

I’ve just noticed an important discrepancy between the Docstrings and the Package structure section of the documentation.

Compiling the documentation locally produces the complete and exhaustive summary of all functions and classes. But for a reason yet to be investigated, the latest compilation of the readthedocs has rendered a summary where many important functions are missing (from the principal files such as subproblem_py, master_problem.py, reho.py, plotting.py…)

This shouldn't prevent review in any way (since Docstrings are visible directly in the code), but I'll try to sort it out as soon as possible for your convenience.

_EDIT 22.05: This was related to the documentation failing to import some modules when building online. It has been resolved by adding the appropriate autodoc_mock_imports in reho/documentation/conf.py. Package structure section and reho module autosummary are now complete and work both fine._

https://github.com/IPESE/REHO/commit/4baa42174d6ffde9573abae2503e6d72ce0c88a6

willu47 commented 1 month ago

Review checklist for @willu47

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

mbarzegary commented 6 days ago

@DorsanL I see a few issues opened by the reviewers on the repository. Can you please provide an update on the above, in terms of responding to the issues raised?

mbarzegary commented 6 days ago

@nmstreethran and @hgandhi2411 can you please have a look at the comments above and check if they address your concerns?

mbarzegary commented 6 days ago

@willu47 how is your review going?

nmstreethran commented 6 days ago

Hi @mbarzegary, there are two main issues from my side that are still to be addressed:

I'm happy to complete my checklist once these are resolved.

hgandhi2411 commented 3 days ago

@mbarzegary @DorsanL has addressed some of my concerns, however, there are still some issues with imports and how the package is structured. I would like this issue addressed https://github.com/IPESE/REHO/issues/18 along with some basic unit tests put in place as described by @nmstreethran