[REVIEW]: CTSEG: A segment picture quantum impurity solver based on TRIQS

editorialbot commented 2 weeks ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@nkavokine@lucydot<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @HugoStrand, @egcpvanloon Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/78121720b03290b539169e8bcc42a007"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/78121720b03290b539169e8bcc42a007/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/78121720b03290b539169e8bcc42a007/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/78121720b03290b539169e8bcc42a007)

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

@HugoStrand & @egcpvanloon, 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 @lucydot 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 @egcpvanloon

editorialbot commented 2 weeks 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 2 weeks ago

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1103/RevModPhys.83.349 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.87.125102 is OK
- 10.1103/RevModPhys.68.13 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2015.04.023 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2015.10.023 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2017.01.003 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2012.12.013 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2018.09.007 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.105.L180404 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.016501 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- None

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 2 weeks ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.06 s (2490.4 files/s, 186127.8 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C++                             29            702            906           2215
Python                          16            258            314            939
reStructuredText                23            408            251            747
C/C++ Header                    31            369            732            736
CMake                           16            117            169            553
CSS                              2             80             20            354
YAML                             6             25              4            249
Markdown                         6             52              0            144
TeX                              1             10              0            140
HTML                             1              6              0             46
Bourne Shell                     2              6              1             21
Dockerfile                       1              3              3             12
SVG                              6              0              0              6
JavaScript                       2              0             13              2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           142           2036           2413           6164
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   129  nkavokine
    97  Nils Wentzell
    84  Olivier Parcollet
     9  Alexander Hampel
     6  Hao Lu
     6  Thomas Hahn
     5  Henri Menke
     2  Michel Ferrero
     1  Dylan Simon
     1  Nikita Kavokine
     1  clang_format
     1  gen_copyright

editorialbot commented 2 weeks ago

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 741

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

editorialbot commented 2 weeks ago

License info:

🟡 License found: Other (Check here for OSI approval)

editorialbot commented 2 weeks ago

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

lucydot commented 2 hours ago

Hi @HugoStrand and @egcpvanloon, how are your reviews going? If you have any questions you can ask here.

egcpvanloon commented 2 hours ago

Review checklist for @egcpvanloon

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/TRIQS/ctseg?
[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 (@nkavokine) 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
[ ] 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.
[ ] 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?
[ ] 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?
[x] 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)?
[x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
[x] 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?
[ ] 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