[REVIEW]: py-opc: operate the Alphasense OPC-N2 from a raspberry pi or other popular microcontrollers/microcomputers

whedon commented 6 years ago

Submitting author: @dhhagan (David Henry Hagan) Repository: https://github.com/dhhagan/py-opc Version: v1.6.0 Editor: @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Reviewer: @tshu Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.1299205

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/049f6d3dab9391e8353484028148dd0d"><img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/049f6d3dab9391e8353484028148dd0d/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/049f6d3dab9391e8353484028148dd0d/status.svg)](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/049f6d3dab9391e8353484028148dd0d)

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) 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

@tshu, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman know.

Review checklist for @tshu

Conflict of interest

[x] As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

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 repository url?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Version: Does the release version given match the GitHub release (1.6.1)?
[x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@dhhagan) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

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?
[x] 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 function 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] Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
[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] References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

whedon commented 6 years ago

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon commented 6 years ago

--> Check article proof :page_facing_up: <--

tshu commented 6 years ago

@dhhagan The references have been fixed, and I have checked off all review points. The device itself has been left with @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman for pickup.

As an additional note, the readme mentions that only python3 is supported for USB-SPI, though installation instructions through pip are for python2. It's a minor thing, but perhaps a one liner about how the installation can be run with pip3 would be good. It definitely caught me (hence the opened issue.)

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 6 years ago

@dhhagan thanks for amending the paper. Two tiny things and we are done here.

1) Consider implementing the suggestion by @tshu in relation to the readme. 2) @doceme created a DOI for citing his work, see here: https://zenodo.org/record/1299863#.WzUvXhwh1G8 So please could you replace the citation with:

@misc{stephen_caudle_2018_1299863,
  author       = {Stephen Caudle},
  title        = {doceme/py-spidev: Version 3.3},
  month        = jun,
  year         = 2018,
  doi          = {10.5281/zenodo.1299863},
  url          = {https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1299863}
}

Once you've done these steps, please regenerate the paper here and archive a version of the final reviewed software in a service like Zenodo, and share the DOI of this archive here. @arfon can then proceed to formally accept this submission (see also: https://guides.github.com/activities/citable-code/). N.B. please inform @arfon if the release/version number has changed since review (or as part of the DOI minting) so he can update it for you.

Thanks @tshu for the review work here! :tada:

dhhagan commented 6 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 6 years ago

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon commented 6 years ago

--> Check article proof :page_facing_up: <--

dhhagan commented 6 years ago

Should be good to go:

Zenodo DOI: DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1299205 Final reviewed version: v1.6.0

Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman commented 6 years ago

Awesome :tada: @arfon over to you, please proceed to accept this submission. Note the DOI and changed version number cited by @dhhagan.

arfon commented 6 years ago

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.1299205 as archive

whedon commented 6 years ago

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.1299205 is the archive.

arfon commented 6 years ago

@tshu - many thanks for your review here and to @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman for editing this submission ✨

@dhhagan - your paper is now accepted into JOSS and your DOI is https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00782 :zap: :rocket: :boom:

whedon commented 6 years ago

:tada::tada::tada: Congratulations on your paper acceptance! :tada::tada::tada:

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippet:

[![DOI](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.00782/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00782)

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

Journal of Open Source Software is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider doing either one (or both) of the the following:

Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: http://joss.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause_pdetails/Mjk3Nzk=

openjournals / joss-reviews