Closed whedon closed 5 years ago
Hello human, I'm @whedon. I'm here to help you with some common editorial tasks. @mdoucet, it looks like you're currently assigned as the reviewer for this paper :tada:.
:star: Important :star:
If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews) repository. As a reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all reviews 😿
To fix this do the following two things:
For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:
@whedon commands
Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
I've completed my review. While I'm not a subject matter expert of energy systems modeling, I found the documentation quite clear. I was able to go through examples without any issue. The code itself is well organized, with great use of continuous integration and automated testing.
It was a pleasure to review this work by Pfenninger and Pickering. Excellent software and documentation. Please find below some suggestions:
It is clear from the paper and the examples that the analysis scales well from urban to national networks. For a power systems user, however, it would be good to clarify that building a transmission model with Calliope is different than a traditional power flow analysis (Ybus, generation, demand -> dc or ac power flow equations -> voltage magnitude and angles).
Similarly, perhaps note that the focus is power system planning (as opposed to operations).
The tutorials cover a great amount of content, options, and optimization constraints. For a given network size, I would suggest a performance comparison between some of the external solvers, or simply some pointers to help users decide before finding possible roadblocks.
Should the version number be updated to the latest release (v0.6.2)?
@gonsie Yes that would make sense. @jedbrown, should we modify the submission now or wait for all reviews to be completed?
I updated this thread to name v0.6.2. @gonsie It looks like the remaining items are in your review of Functionality.
I guess the paper also still says 0.6.0 - should I modify paper.md
or do that at the very end of the review process?
We can do it at the end.
I am unable the test the functionality of this due to issues with my work firewall (I am unable to install conda / dependencies). I may be able to review this on personal time (maybe another week or so), or I'm happy to defer to the other reviewers.
I notice the requirement ruamel.yaml<=0.15
which would allow 0.15.0, but not 0.15.1. Is that really intentional? I also notice that ruamel.yaml 0.15.0 is not compatible with Python-3.7 and that Calliope is not compatible with current ruamel.yaml (at least because it now returns a type that implements the dict interface, but is not an instance of dict
).
I think the reviews above are sufficient, but wanted to give an opportunity to address version compatibility issues (if you so desire) because it would ease non-conda installation and coupling of Calliope with other software.
Thanks @jedbrown for raising the ruamel.yaml
requirement issue. The version pinning is based on the ruamel.yaml README:
Starting with version 0.15.0 the way YAML files are loaded and dumped is changing. See the API doc for details. Currently existing functionality will throw a warning before being changed/removed. For production systems you should pin the version being used with
ruamel.yaml<=0.15
.
Not providing Python 3.7 compatibility is certainly issue. We will investigate this. I don't think there's a quick fix, as we'll have to make some changes to our internals.
@whedon generate pdf
Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
I installed the software and followed one of the tutorials -- looks great.
@sjpfenninger Can you fix capitalization in the bib file? I think this is a result of a new JOSS style file, but proper names should be protected: "europe", "great britain", "ecos", "san diego, ca", "south africa", "python". When that is fixed, we'll be ready to archive. Thanks for your patience.
@jedbrown That should be fixed. I also bumped codemeta.json
to v0.6.2 (the current version and the version that was online when the review started).
@whedon generate pdf
Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
@sjpfenninger Looks good. Please archive your repository using Zenodo or similar and report the DOI here.
The generic Zenodo DOI is 10.5281/zenodo.593292 and the DOI for version 0.6.2 is 10.5281/zenodo.1262406 -- or do you need the specific commit that contains the accepted version of the JOSS paper to be archived?
Normally we ask to archive after the review issue is complete. In this case, I think the only review-relevant changes after your v0.6.2 tag is in the JOSS paper.bib. @arfon Do we need a fresh archive or is the v0.6.2 DOI sufficient?
@arfon Do we need a fresh archive or is the v0.6.2 DOI sufficient?
Should be sufficient as long as it represents the code associated with this submission (including any changes from the review).
@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.1262406 as archive
OK. 10.5281/zenodo.1262406 is the archive.
@arfon Over to you. Thanks to @ecotillasanchez, @mdoucet, and @gonsie for your reviews.
@ecotillasanchez, @mdoucet, @gonsie many thanks for your reviews here and to @jedbrown for editing this submission ✨
@sjpfenninger - your paper is now accepted into JOSS and your DOI is https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00825 :zap: :rocket: :boom:
: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 snippets:
Markdown:
[![DOI](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.00825/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00825)
HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00825">
<img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.00825/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>
reStructuredText:
.. image:: http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.00825/status.svg
:target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00825
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:
Thanks @jedbrown, @ecotillasanchez, @mdoucet, @gonsie for your reviews/comments/editing!
Submitting author: @sjpfenninger (Stefan Pfenninger) Repository: https://github.com/calliope-project/calliope Version: v0.6.2 Editor: @jedbrown Reviewer: @mdoucet, @gonsie, @ecotillasanchez Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.1262406
Status
Status badge code:
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
@mdoucet & @gonsie & @ecotillasanchez, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:
The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines. Any questions/concerns please let @jedbrown know.
✨ Please try and complete your review in the next two weeks ✨
Review checklist for @mdoucet
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
paper.md
file include a list of authors with their affiliations?Review checklist for @gonsie
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
paper.md
file include a list of authors with their affiliations?Review checklist for @ecotillasanchez
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
paper.md
file include a list of authors with their affiliations?