[REVIEW]: itrm: Interactive Terminal Utilities

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@davidwoodburn<!--end-author-handle-- (David Woodburn) Repository: https://gitlab.com/davidwoodburn/itrm Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): main Version: 1.2.1 Editor: !--editor-->@mstimberg<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @domoritz, @DevangThakkar Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/290c965a69246eaf6ec40c3e20e318c4"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/290c965a69246eaf6ec40c3e20e318c4/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/290c965a69246eaf6ec40c3e20e318c4/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/290c965a69246eaf6ec40c3e20e318c4)

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

@domoritz & @DevangThakkar, 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 @mstimberg 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 @domoritz

[editorialbot]

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]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.04 s (481.8 files/s, 154105.9 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          13            654           1685           2368
Markdown                         3            165              0            428
TeX                              1              0              0            137
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            17            819           1685           2933
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

    95  David Woodburn

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 583

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

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

✅ OK DOIs

- None

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: itrm
- No DOI given, and none found for title: terminalplot
- No DOI given, and none found for title: bashplotlib
- No DOI given, and none found for title: pysparklines
- No DOI given, and none found for title: termgraph
- No DOI given, and none found for title: termplot
- No DOI given, and none found for title: termplotlib
- No DOI given, and none found for title: plotille
- No DOI given, and none found for title: drawille
- No DOI given, and none found for title: asciichartpy
- No DOI given, and none found for title: uniplot
- No DOI given, and none found for title: plotext
- No DOI given, and none found for title: pipeplot
- No DOI given, and none found for title: gnuplot
- No DOI given, and none found for title: ttyplot
- No DOI given, and none found for title: YouPlot
- No DOI given, and none found for title: termeter

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

License info:

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

[editorialbot]

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

[mstimberg]

👋🏼 @davidwoodburn @domoritz @DevangThakkar 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.

There are additional guidelines in the message at the start of this issue.

Please feel free to ping me (@mstimberg) if you have any questions/concerns.

[domoritz]

Review checklist for @domoritz

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://gitlab.com/davidwoodburn/itrm?
• [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 (@davidwoodburn) 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?
• [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)?
• [ ] 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?
• [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?

[domoritz]

Exciting and well-executed tool. I think we should accept this submission. Here are some suggestions and notes from my review.

• The summary describes a lot of the motivation for the software. Some of this could be moved to the statement of need to make more space to describe the purpose more concisely and describe features.

• The paper should list the unique features of the software. The text says what other tools don't provide ("None of these tools is interactive in the sense of providing data point inspection...") but doesn't explicitly mention what the tool does. The summary maybe has too much motivation and too little explanation of what the tool does.

• I'd suggest removing the reference to the repo since the paper itself will be the reference. There is already a link to the repo.

• I'd suggest removing the download count since it will be outdated. The paper should serve as a reference for many years.

• Maybe the description of the author using the software could be moved to the readme since it may be outdated in a. few years as this software gains more users.

• The table needs some explanations. Like what does it mean for a y-axis to be limited?

• There are currently only a single contributor, no issue reports or indication of other users, and only two starts. The software seems very well done and useful, though, and as far as I can see broad usage is not a requirement for JOSS. The author is clearly finding this software useful.

• There are no installation instructions. A quick reference on how to install with pip would be great.

• There is only a single author. A note on how to contribute could help incentivize others to contribute as well.

• There are no automated tests.

• The examples worked for me. Here is how I called it:

I ran this code

# /// script
# requires-python = ">=3.12"
# dependencies = [
#   "itrm",
# ]
# ///

import numpy as np
import itrm

# Constants
K = 200000
J = 6

# x axis
x = np.linspace(0, 1, K)

# y axis data
Y = np.zeros((J, len(x)))
for j in range(J):
    Y[j] = np.cos(2*np.pi*2*x + (j/J)*np.pi)

# plot
labels = ["Fruit", "Plum", "Grape", "Apple", "Banana", "Orange", "Cherry"]
itrm.iplot(x, Y, lg="x", label=labels, uni=True)

with uv run eg_iplot.py. Here is the interactive example:

• Not for the paper but something to think about. The config file is a bit odd. Where exactly will this file be if I install the library with pip or uv? Maybe instead there should be a default config and people can manually override it in python? Having a config file hides state and could be avoided with explicit configuration from python (setting something on the itrm object).
• The examples are good, albeit not using real-world data.