[REVIEW]: Satisfiability.jl: Satisfiability Modulo Theories in Julia

editorialbot commented 1 month ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@elsoroka@diehlpk<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @rafaelbailo, @dpsanders, @computablee Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/68f75b3e24424e344dbb80af79dcab4b"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/68f75b3e24424e344dbb80af79dcab4b/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/68f75b3e24424e344dbb80af79dcab4b/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/68f75b3e24424e344dbb80af79dcab4b)

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

@rafaelbailo & @dpsanders & @computablee, 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 @diehlpk 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 @rafaelbailo

📝 Checklist for @computablee

📝 Checklist for @dpsanders

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=0.05 s (1492.7 files/s, 139966.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julia                           31            750           1116           2470
Markdown                        16            229              0            834
TeX                              6             31             29            336
Lisp                             3             63              0            310
YAML                             5              6             12            108
JSON                             1              0              0             30
Bourne Shell                     3              4              0             21
TOML                             2              4              0             14
Dockerfile                       1              2              0              7
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            68           1089           1157           4130
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   232  Emiko Soroka
     2  dependabot[bot]
     1  Mykel Kochenderfer
     1  Thomas Schmelzer

editorialbot commented 1 month ago

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1299

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

editorialbot commented 1 month ago

License info:

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

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:

editorialbot commented 1 month ago

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.48550/arXiv.1410.4821 is OK
- 10.1007/s12532-023-00239-3 is OK
- 10.1145/1995376.1995394 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-81688-9_9 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-540-78800-3_24 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-99524-9_24 is OK
- 10.3233/SAT190039 is OK
- 10.1145/3136000.3136004 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-031-24950-1_5 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-031-24950-1_12 is OK
- 10.1137/141000671 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-80223-3_26 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: The calculus of computation: decision procedures w...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Decision procedures
- No DOI given, and none found for title: PySMT: a solver-agnostic library for fast prototyp...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: PicoSAT.jl
- No DOI given, and none found for title: The SMT-LIB Standard: Version 2.6

INVALID DOIs

- None

rafaelbailo commented 1 month ago

Review checklist for @rafaelbailo

Conflict of interest

[x] I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

[x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

[x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/elsoroka/Satisfiability.jl?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@elsoroka) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
[x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
[x] Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
[x] Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
[x] Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

[ ] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[ ] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
[ ] Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[ ] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
[x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
[x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
[ ] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
[ ] Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

[x] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
[x] A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
[x] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
[ ] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
[x] References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

computablee commented 1 month ago

Review checklist for @computablee

Conflict of interest

[x] I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

[x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

[x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/elsoroka/Satisfiability.jl?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@elsoroka) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
[x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
[x] Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
[x] Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
[x] Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

[x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
[x] Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[ ] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
[x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
[x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
[x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
[ ] Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

[x] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
[x] A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
[x] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
[x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
[x] References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

diehlpk commented 1 month ago

Hi @rafaelbailo, @dpsanders, @computablee how is your review going?

computablee commented 1 month ago

@diehlpk I was just taking a look at this a couple days ago. Things have been very busy with work, but if all goes well I should be able to get a lot of review stuff done this weekend.

rafaelbailo commented 4 weeks ago

Hi @diehlpk, I've just posted my review in a separate issue. Thanks for your patience!

computablee commented 3 weeks ago

Hello @diehlpk! Sorry for the late review, but I've checked most of the boxes and opened an issue over here with my full review.

diehlpk commented 2 weeks ago

Hi @rafaelbailo how is your review going?

rafaelbailo commented 2 weeks ago

Hi @diehlpk, @elsoroka has began work addressing my comments in the review issue.

diehlpk commented 1 week ago

Hi @elsoroka please let me know when you have done the changes.

elsoroka commented 4 days ago

Hi @diehlpk apologies for the delay; I started a new internship a couple weeks ago and haven't had much time. I am targeting end of this week to make the changes because we have a couple days off for the holiday.

dpsanders commented 1 day ago

Review checklist for @dpsanders

Conflict of interest

[x] I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

[x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

[x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/elsoroka/Satisfiability.jl?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@elsoroka) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
[x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
[x] Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
[x] Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
[x] Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

[ ] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[ ] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
[ ] Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

[ ] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[ ] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
[ ] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
[ ] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
[ ] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
[ ] Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

[ ] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
[ ] A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
[ ] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
[ ] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
[ ] References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

openjournals / joss-reviews