Devicely: A Python package for reading, timeshifting and writing sensor data

arianesasso commented 3 years ago

Submitting Author: Ariane Sasso (@arianesasso) All current maintainers: @arianesasso Package Name: Devicely One-Line Description of Package: A Python package for reading, timeshifting and writing sensor data Repository Link: https://github.com/hpi-dhc/devicely Version submitted: 0.2.5 Editor: @xmnlab Reviewer 1: @willingc Reviewer 2: @agricolab
Archive: JOSS DOI: Version accepted: v1.1.1 Date accepted (month/day/year): 08/19/2021

Description

Wearable devices can track a multitude of parameters such as heart rate, body temperature, blood oxygen saturation, acceleration, blood glucose and much more [Kamisalic2018]. Moreover, they are becoming increasingly popular with a steeping increase in market presence in 2020 alone [IDC2020]. Applications for wearable devices varies from tracking cardiovascular risks [Bayoumy2021] to identifying COVID-19 onset [Mishra2020]. Therefore, there is a great need for scientists to easily go through data acquired from different wearables. In order to solve this problem and empower scientists working with biosignals, we developed the devicely package. It represents the data in a science-friendly format and lets scientists focus on what they want: the analysis of biosignals.

Scope

Please indicate which category or categories this package falls under:
- [ ] Data retrieval
- [ ] Data extraction
- [x] Data munging
- [ ] Data deposition
- [ ] Reproducibility
- [ ] Geospatial
- [ ] Education
- [ ] Data visualization*

* Please fill out a pre-submission inquiry before submitting a data visualization package. For more info, see notes on categories of our guidebook.

Explain how the and why the package falls under these categories (briefly, 1-2 sentences): We developed this package for scientists to easily go through data acquired from different wearables.
Who is the target audience and what are scientific applications of this package?
Scientists working with wearable devices.
Are there other Python packages that accomplish the same thing? If so, how does yours differ? Not to our knowledge.
If you made a pre-submission enquiry, please paste the link to the corresponding issue, forum post, or other discussion, or @tag the editor you contacted:

Technical checks

For details about the pyOpenSci packaging requirements, see our packaging guide. Confirm each of the following by checking the box. This package:

[x] does not violate the Terms of Service of any service it interacts with.
[x] has an OSI approved license.
[x] contains a README with instructions for installing the development version.
[x] includes documentation with examples for all functions.
[x] contains a vignette with examples of its essential functions and uses.
[x] has a test suite.
[x] has continuous integration, such as Travis CI, AppVeyor, CircleCI, and/or others.

Publication options

[x] Do you wish to automatically submit to the Journal of Open Source Software? If so:

JOSS Checks

- [x] The package has an **obvious research application** according to JOSS's definition in their [submission requirements][JossSubmissionRequirements]. Be aware that completing the pyOpenSci review process **does not** guarantee acceptance to JOSS. Be sure to read their submission requirements (linked above) if you are interested in submitting to JOSS. - [x] The package is not a "minor utility" as defined by JOSS's [submission requirements][JossSubmissionRequirements]: "Minor ‘utility’ packages, including ‘thin’ API clients, are not acceptable." pyOpenSci welcomes these packages under "Data Retrieval", but JOSS has slightly different criteria. - [x] The package contains a `paper.md` matching [JOSS's requirements][JossPaperRequirements] with a high-level description in the package root or in `inst/`. - [x] The package is deposited in a long-term repository with the DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4661545 *Note: Do not submit your package separately to JOSS*

Are you OK with Reviewers Submitting Issues and/or pull requests to your Repo Directly?

This option will allow reviewers to open smaller issues that can then be linked to PR's rather than submitting a more dense text based review. It will also allow you to demonstrate addressing the issue via PR links.

[x] Yes I am OK with reviewers submitting requested changes as issues to my repo. Reviewers will then link to the issues in their submitted review.

Code of conduct

[x] I agree to abide by pyOpenSci's Code of Conduct during the review process and in maintaining my package should it be accepted.

P.S. *Have feedback/comments about our review process? Leave a comment here

Editor and Review Templates

Editor and review templates can be found here

lwasser commented 3 years ago

hi @arianesasso ! thank you for this submission! i know it's been sitting for a while. I am just catching up and will get back to you regarding next steps!

lwasser commented 3 years ago

this package is definitely in scope for pyopensci review!.

lwasser commented 3 years ago

@arianesasso we are moving on this - we have an editor and reviewers are underway. more to come soon. @xmnlab will be the editor for this package review.

xmnlab commented 3 years ago

@arianesasso @lwasser, adding initial editor checks here.

@arianesasso we are lining up reviewers for your package. When we receive the confirmation I will update the text here with this information.

Editor checks:

[x] Fit: The package meets criteria for fit and overlap.
[x] Automated tests: Package has a testing suite and is tested via Travis-CI or another CI service.
[x] License: The package has an OSI accepted license
[x] Repository: The repository link resolves correctly
[ ] Archive (JOSS only, may be post-review): The repository DOI resolves correctly
[ ] Version (JOSS only, may be post-review): Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v1.0.0)?

Editor comments

Reviewers: @willingc @agricolab

Due date: June. 14th

xmnlab commented 3 years ago

Hi @willingc! @lwasser told me that she has talked to you about reviewing a package for pyopensci! that sounds great!

PyOpenSci contributing guide is here https://www.pyopensci.org/contributing-guide/intro.html

This is the guide specifically for reviewers: https://www.pyopensci.org/contributing-guide/open-source-software-submissions/reviewer-guide.html

This is my first time acting as editor, so I still in the learning curve process :) I have reviewed some packages here so feel free to ping me anytime you need any information or help.

I am waiting for the confirmation of one more reviewer and after that, I will update the schedules for this review.

thank you so much for your support :)

xmnlab commented 3 years ago

Hi @agricolab!

@NickleDave told me you are available to review this package, thank you so much!

PyOpenSci contributing guide is here https://www.pyopensci.org/contributing-guide/intro.html

And this is the guide specifically for reviewers: https://www.pyopensci.org/contributing-guide/open-source-software-submissions/reviewer-guide.html

As I mentioned before, this is my first time acting as an editor, so I still in the learning curve process :) I have reviewed some packages here so feel free to ping me anytime you need any information or help.

I am updating today some information in the first comment in this issue, including the due date for the reviews.

thank you so much for your support!

xmnlab commented 3 years ago

@arianesasso @agricolab @willingc @lwasser

I updated the information here https://github.com/pyOpenSci/software-review/issues/37#issuecomment-846220959

Let me know if I can help in any way! thank you all!

agricolab commented 3 years ago

Looking forward, will start reviewing next week!

xmnlab commented 3 years ago

thank you so much @agricolab, I really appreciate that!

willingc commented 3 years ago

@xmnlab I started last night and made some notes in a gist

arianesasso commented 3 years ago

@arianesasso we are moving on this - we have an editor and reviewers are underway. more to come soon. @xmnlab will be the editor for this package review.

Thank you so much for all your hard work!

xmnlab commented 3 years ago

that sounds great @willingc . thank you so much!

agricolab commented 3 years ago

Package Review

Please check off boxes as applicable, and elaborate in comments below. Your review is not limited to these topics, as described in the reviewer guide

[x] As the reviewer I confirm that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work (If you are unsure whether you are in conflict, please speak to your editor before starting your review).

Documentation

The package includes all the following forms of documentation:

[x] A statement of need clearly stating problems the software is designed to solve and its target audience in README
[x] Installation instructions: for the development version of package and any non-standard dependencies in README
[x] Vignette(s) demonstrating major functionality that runs successfully locally
[x] Function Documentation: for all user-facing functions
[x] Examples for all user-facing functions
[x] Community guidelines including contribution guidelines in the README or CONTRIBUTING.
[x] Metadata including author(s), author e-mail(s), a url, and any other relevant metadata e.g., in a setup.py file or elsewhere.

Readme requirements The package meets the readme requirements below:

[x] Package has a README.md file in the root directory.

The README should include, from top to bottom:

[x] The package name
[x] Badges for continuous integration and test coverage, a repostatus.org badge, and any other badges. If the README has many more badges, you might want to consider using a table for badges: see this example. Such a table should be more wide than high. (Note that the badge for pyOpenSci peer-review will be provided upon acceptance.)
[x] Short description of goals of package, with descriptive links to all vignettes (rendered, i.e. readable, cf the documentation website section) unless the package is small and there’s only one vignette repeating the README.
[x] Installation instructions
[x] Any additional setup required (authentication tokens, etc)
[x] Brief demonstration usage
[x] Direction to more detailed documentation (e.g. your documentation files or website).
[x] If applicable, how the package compares to other similar packages and/or how it relates to other packages
[x] Citation information

Usability

Reviewers are encouraged to submit suggestions (or pull requests) that will improve the usability of the package as a whole. Package structure should follow general community best-practices. In general please consider:

[x] The documentation is easy to find and understand
[x] The need for the package is clear
[x] All functions have documentation and associated examples for use

Functionality

[x] Installation: Installation succeeds as documented.
[x] Functionality: Any functional claims of the software been confirmed.
[x] Performance: Any performance claims of the software been confirmed.
[x] Automated tests: Tests cover essential functions of the package and a reasonable range of inputs and conditions. All tests pass on the local machine.
[x] Continuous Integration: Has continuous integration, such as Travis CI, AppVeyor, CircleCI, and/or others.
[x] Packaging guidelines: The package conforms to the pyOpenSci packaging guidelines.

For packages co-submitting to JOSS

[x] The package has an obvious research application according to JOSS's definition in their submission requirements.

Note: Be sure to check this carefully, as JOSS's submission requirements and scope differ from pyOpenSci's in terms of what types of packages are accepted.

The package contains a paper.md matching JOSS's requirements with:

[x] A short summary describing the high-level functionality of the software
[x] Authors: A list of authors with their affiliations
[x] A statement of need clearly stating problems the software is designed to solve and its target audience.
[x] References: with DOIs for all those that have one (e.g. papers, datasets, software).

Final approval (post-review)

[x] The author has responded to my review and made changes to my satisfaction. I recommend approving this package.

Estimated hours spent reviewing:

Review Comments

[x] Some badges are missing (test coverage, repostatus.org)
[x] Almost all tests failed when running locally on my machine (see https://github.com/hpi-dhc/devicely/issues/19)
[x] Faros is apparently ignored during CI/ automated tests? When i run it locally, it works, though. Please explain the reason for ignoring it, though, so i can consider whether the item "automated tests" is fullfilled.
[x] HISTORY/CHANGELOG.md missing in root directory (see https://www.pyopensci.org/contributing-guide/authoring/release.html#history-news-changelog-file)
[x] A comparison to other packages should be included in the paper.md
[x] my review is finished, waiting for authors response.

Considering all tests pass when the most recent dependencies are used, and from browsing through the tests, i consider all functionalities and performance claims to be confirmed.

agricolab commented 3 years ago

@xmnlab is this a co-submission to JOSS?

arianesasso commented 3 years ago

@xmnlab is this a co-submission to JOSS?

@agricolab that was our goal :), the paper is in inst/paper.md

xmnlab commented 3 years ago

thanks @arianesasso for the quick response :)

agricolab commented 3 years ago

Dear @arianesasso, i finished my review, looking forward to your response!

arianesasso commented 3 years ago

Dear @arianesasso, i finished my review, looking forward to your response!

Dear @agricolab, thank you so much for reviewing our package! We will go through the comments this week :).

xmnlab commented 3 years ago

thank you so much for your review @agricolab !

arianesasso commented 3 years ago

Dear @agricolab, thanks again for the great review! We added a repostatus.org badge to the repository and will add another one with test coverage (possibly https://github.com/nedbat/coveragepy; other suggestions are welcomed as well). We will fix hpi-dhc/devicely#19. Also, thanks for pointing out the issue with FAROS in CI/tests (we are investigating). More, we will add HISTORY/CHANGELOG.md which is indeed missing in the root directory; and we are currently writing a new section in the paper.md with the comparison to other packages (great point). We will notify everyone when the changes are ready :).

xmnlab commented 3 years ago

@willingc, just a friendly reminder about the review deadline June. 14th (tomorrow). Let me know if you would need extra time to finish your review. thank you so much!

willingc commented 3 years ago

@xmnlab Should be good to wrap up later this evening 👍🏼

xmnlab commented 3 years ago

@willingc that sounds good, thank you so much!

willingc commented 3 years ago

Package Review

Please check off boxes as applicable, and elaborate in comments below. Your review is not limited to these topics, as described in the reviewer guide

[x] As the reviewer I confirm that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work (If you are unsure whether you are in conflict, please speak to your editor before starting your review).

Documentation

The package includes all the following forms of documentation:

[ ] A statement of need clearly stating problems the software is designed to solve and its target audience in README
[ ] Installation instructions: for the development version of package and any non-standard dependencies in README
[x] Vignette(s) demonstrating major functionality that runs successfully locally
[x] Function Documentation: for all user-facing functions
[x] Examples for all user-facing functions
[ ] Community guidelines including contribution guidelines in the README or CONTRIBUTING.
[x] Metadata including author(s), author e-mail(s), a url, and any other relevant metadata e.g., in a setup.py file or elsewhere.

Readme requirements The package meets the readme requirements below:

[x] Package has a README.md file in the root directory.

The README should include, from top to bottom:

[x] The package name
[x] Badges for continuous integration and test coverage, a repostatus.org badge, and any other badges. If the README has many more badges, you might want to consider using a table for badges: see this example. Such a table should be more wide than high. (Note that the badge for pyOpenSci peer-review will be provided upon acceptance.)
[x] Short description of goals of package, with descriptive links to all vignettes (rendered, i.e. readable, cf the documentation website section) unless the package is small and there’s only one vignette repeating the README.
[x] Installation instructions
[x] Any additional setup required (authentication tokens, etc)
[x] Brief demonstration usage
[x] Direction to more detailed documentation (e.g. your documentation files or website).
[ ] If applicable, how the package compares to other similar packages and/or how it relates to other packages
[x] Citation information

Usability

Reviewers are encouraged to submit suggestions (or pull requests) that will improve the usability of the package as a whole. Package structure should follow general community best-practices. In general please consider:

[x] The documentation is easy to find and understand
[x] The need for the package is clear
[x] All functions have documentation and associated examples for use

Functionality

[x] Installation: Installation succeeds as documented.
[x] Functionality: Any functional claims of the software been confirmed.
[x] Performance: Any performance claims of the software been confirmed.
[x] Automated tests: Tests cover essential functions of the package and a reasonable range of inputs and conditions. All tests pass on the local machine.
[x] Continuous Integration: Has continuous integration, such as Travis CI, AppVeyor, CircleCI, and/or others.
[ ] Packaging guidelines: The package conforms to the pyOpenSci packaging guidelines.

For packages co-submitting to JOSS

[ ] The package has an obvious research application according to JOSS's definition in their submission requirements.

Note: Be sure to check this carefully, as JOSS's submission requirements and scope differ from pyOpenSci's in terms of what types of packages are accepted.

The package contains a paper.md matching JOSS's requirements with:

[ ] A short summary describing the high-level functionality of the software
[ ] Authors: A list of authors with their affiliations
[ ] A statement of need clearly stating problems the software is designed to solve and its target audience.
[ ] References: with DOIs for all those that have one (e.g. papers, datasets, software).

Final approval (post-review)

[ ] The author has responded to my review and made changes to my satisfaction. I recommend approving this package.

Estimated hours spent reviewing: 2.5 hours

Review Comments

README

Add test coverage ~, a repostatus.org~ badge
Strengthen statement of need
Rename master branch to main and update test.yml, etc.
For usability, reorder the README and add section for contributor guidelines, how to run tests, which Python versions are supported

Docs

Consider adding devicely/inst/paper.md to sphinx docs

Installation related suggestions

Be a bit more explicit with development installation instructions
pipenv pinned to 3.6, relax to 3.6+
[dev-packages] can be removed as none are provided
pipenv didn't work on 3.6.13 on my system or with 3.9.5 (I was able to run everything with Python 3.9.5 using pip)
While using pipenv is fine, I recommend explaining how to install with generic python

Usage suggestions

In Basic usage, perhaps give an example using the REPL and an example using as a library.
For Example, be explicit that pandas needs to be installed to run the example (a fully runnable example is helpful. I realize that the notebook contains these examples. It would)
One line description of each sensor type or link to the other sensor projects in the "Reading ... Data"
Explain the TimeStamp App
Notebook (Why pipenv defaulting to CPython 3.6.13?) Relax pipenv file to 3.6+
In pipenv file, editable = true not sure that this needs to be an editable install unless developing devicely source code
Mention in Usage that the examples are found in the notebook and the data source is available at the figshare url/doi

Notebook

add prose to give reader context

cell 1 should read (order imports)

from datetime import timedelta

import pandas as pd

import devicely

cell 3 should have a space between 15, and unit='d' (same error in README)

Tests

Add instructions on how to run tests with pytest
Add coverage

Packaging

In addition to deploying to PyPI, consider creating a conda-forge feedstock

Overall, the submission looks very good. I've left some suggestions for good practices (most are pretty straightforward to implement). Feel free to ping me with any questions.

cc/ @xmnlab

willingc commented 3 years ago

Dear @arianesasso, I've finished my review. Thanks so much for submitting.

arianesasso commented 3 years ago

Dear @willingc, thank you for your thoroughly review :). We appreciate all the great suggestions and we will work on them. We will ping you once they are done or if we have any particular question.

xmnlab commented 3 years ago

hi @arianesasso ! as the last update here was 2 weeks ago I would like to check about the progress. let us know if you have any block or if you want to discuss any point related to the review :)

arianesasso commented 3 years ago

Dear @xmnlab, thanks for checking! We are implementing the requests of the reviewers, e. g. we have the new badges and other small changes already in there.

Currently, when checking the problem with the tests: Faros is apparently ignored during CI/ automated tests? When i run it locally, it works, though. Please explain the reason for ignoring it, though, so i can consider whether the item "automated tests" is fullfilled.

We found out why it was being ignored and decided this required some changes in the code to make it more general (and this is taking some time). I think we will be able to have everything ready in 2 weeks. I hope that is ok.

xmnlab commented 3 years ago

dear @arianesasso, thanks for the detailed update! that is fair enough! thanks!

arianesasso commented 3 years ago

Hello @xmnlab! Some updates from our side :).

I think we covered most requests by @agricolab

Added test coverage and repostatus.org badges
Tests should not be failing anymore
Faros is not being ignored anymore
Created version 1.0.0 and added HISTORY/CHANGELOG.md (will have it in pypi this week)
Missing: A comparison to other packages should be included in the paper

We also added some changes based on his and @willingc great reviews:

Changed faros test file (because the size was too big) and fixed tests
Made possible for people to read Faros back into EDF format (when there are no changes into the data frame)
Changed setup.py to pyproject.toml together with poetry (for packaging; dependancy management and building for pypi)
Now we can run tests with poetry as well: poetry install; poetry run python -m pytest
Improved the test coverage

Also, from her side we covered:

Badges
Renamed master branch to main and updated test.yml, etc.
I think now most comments related to pipenv are depracated since we moved to poetry
Improved test coverage

Now, we are working on the comments related to documentation. Since they had many great points we think we have to make it better, plan:

Improve readme and documentation (with embedded jupyter cells)
Use binder
Improve installation, contributing and testing documentation
Update the paper and add it to sphinx

We plan to give you a new update by Friday :).

xmnlab commented 3 years ago

@arianesasso , thank you so much for this detailed update! The update sounds great! I am excited and looking forward to seeing your next update :)

agricolab commented 3 years ago

Great. I'm in vacation until start of August. Will review next week, but I guess most stuff is covered.

xmnlab commented 3 years ago

@agricolab, thanks for letting us know! have a great vacation!

arianesasso commented 3 years ago

@agricolab Thank you :). I updated the paper now with the related work section and some corrections.

We also put a lot of effort in improving the documentation and are still working on that. We are also missing the conda-forge feedstock but will try to have that as well by the end of the week. I think it is coming to an end! And then we will be done with both revisions.

Thank you for your patience!

agricolab commented 3 years ago

All my comments have been addressed, and tests run now smoothly locally. I would now recommend the package for acceptance.

Not relevant, but you might want to link to the paper.md from the docs, or mirror the content.

Also kudos for the dynamic badge for the coverage report, i would have just used coveralls... Again what learned, as we Germans say.

xmnlab commented 3 years ago

hi @arianesasso

thank you for your hard work addressing all the recommendations pointed by the authors! <3

Let us know when it is ready and @willingc can check if her recommendations are addressed, please.

Again, Thank you so much!

willingc commented 3 years ago

I believe that my key recommendations are addressed. Nice improvements 😄

arianesasso commented 3 years ago

@willingc @xmnlab Thank you! We worked hard to improve the documentation, we also added a binder (still improving on that though :)). We are also generating a new version 1.1.0 (probably today). I think the only key suggestion missing is the conda forge feedstock.

willingc commented 3 years ago

@arianesasso Congrats. I've opened a PR for the conda-forge feedstock (https://github.com/conda-forge/staged-recipes/pull/15943). If tests pass, you should be all set there. FYI on the process: I used the grayskull package to generate a meta.yaml file which was then submitted as a PR to the conda-forge.

arianesasso commented 3 years ago

Thank you so much @willingc <3, that is really great!!! And @xmnlab which are the next steps now for pyOpenSci and JOSS? :)

lwasser commented 3 years ago

wow this is great - I will let @xmnlab reply separately, but i didn't know about the grayskull package for conda forge @willingc ! that is great to know about and I will check it out. We could then add it to our users / maintainers guide. It's easy to mess up the syntax for that yaml file. I will open an issue in our guide book about this ! @arianesasso congratulations on the reviews being complete!

xmnlab commented 3 years ago

@arianesasso this is great, congrats!

@willingc and @agricolab thank you so much for the review and all the recommendations here.

@arianesasso I will send you the information about the JOSS process soon.

Let me know when you cut a new realease for devicely and I will update here with the new version number.

Thank you so much.

xmnlab commented 3 years ago

🎉 devicely has been approved by pyOpenSci! Thank you @arianesasso for submitting devicely and many thanks to @willingc and @agricolab for reviewing this package! 😸

There are a few things left to do to wrap up this submission:

[ ] Activate Zenodo watching the repo if you haven't already done so.
[ ] Tag and create a release to create a Zenodo version and DOI.
[ ] Add the badge for pyOpenSci peer-review to the README.md of devicely. The badge should be [![pyOpenSci](https://tinyurl.com/y22nb8up)](https://github.com/pyOpenSci/software-review/issues/issue-number)
[ ] Add devicely to the pyOpenSci website. @arianesasso, please open a pr to update this file: to add your package and name to the list of contributors
[ ] @arianesasso, @willingc and @agricolab if you have time and are open to being listed on our website, please add yourselves to this file via a pr so we can list you on our website as contributors!

It looks like you would like to submit this package to JOSS. Here are the next steps:

[ ] Login to the JOSS website and fill out the JOSS submission form using your Zenodo DOI. When you fill out the form, be sure to mention and link to the approved pyOpenSci review. JOSS will tag your package for expedited review if it is already pyOpenSci approved.
[ ] Wait for a JOSS editor to approve the presubmission (which includes a scope check)
[ ] Once the package is approved by JOSS, you will be given instructions by JOSS about updating the citation information in your README file.
[ ] When the JOSS review is complete, add a comment to your review in the pyOpenSci software-review repo that it has been approved by JOSS.

All -- if you have any feedback for us about the review process please feel free to share it here. We are always looking to improve our process and our documentation in the contributing-guide. We have also been updating our documentation to improve the process so all feedback is appreciated!

PS: Optional - Move Package to PyOpenSci Organization (BETA)

rOpenSci packages often live in the rOpenSci organization. PyOpenSci is still figuring out whether this model fits for the Python community. If you are interested in this option, let us know and we can provide more instructions for that.

xmnlab commented 3 years ago

@lwasser, as it is my first time here acting as editor, let me know if I am missing any point here :) btw the editor guide is great! thank you so much!

lwasser commented 3 years ago

@xmnlab it looks to me like you nailed it! i removed some of the older labels just so it's clear what stage this package is in. this is minor :) but i think we can assume reviewers were found, etc at this point! I'm so so glad the editors guide is clear. i' spent a lot of time on it and know it probably needs fresh eyes to read it but also know i need to work on the maintainer guide next :) so thank you for that feedback!!

I think now we just let JOSS do it's thing. @arianesasso please be sure to reference this issue when submitting to JOSS so we have a clear record of it. Also please make sure there is a paper.md file following all of JOSS' criteria BEFORE you submit there. I do see that my template above doesn't mention the paper.md file does it? I also see that we may want to talk with JOSS about whether they read the paper or we do or both? regardless @xmnlab you did a fantastic job pushing this through the review process!! Thank you. And thank you again to our reviewers @willingc @agricolab . ALL- we are open to any and all feedback as we improve our review processing and documentation.

willingc commented 3 years ago

@lwasser @xmnlab This was the smoothest review process that I have done. Thank you for being so organized. It was a pleasure reviewing with @agricolab too.

Good luck with the project @arianesasso :smile:

agricolab commented 3 years ago

Great! Thanks to everyone involved, and good luck with the project!

arianesasso commented 3 years ago

Dear @xmnlab, I think I addressed all of the points till the JOSS submission :). We also released 1.1.0. Thank you for all your effort! Also, thanks for the awesome revision and help from @agricolab @willingc and @lwasser! For us the process was very smooth and interesting! We found all the feedback really helpful to improve the quality of the package ;).

ps: I would like to know more ablout: Move Package to PyOpenSci Organization

🎉 devicely has been approved by pyOpenSci! Thank you @arianesasso for submitting devicely and many thanks to @willingc and @agricolab for reviewing this package! 😸

There are a few things left to do to wrap up this submission:

[ x ] Activate Zenodo watching the repo if you haven't already done so.

[ x ] Tag and create a release to create a Zenodo version and DOI.

[ x ] Add the badge for pyOpenSci peer-review to the README.md of devicely. The badge should be [![pyOpenSci](https://tinyurl.com/y22nb8up)](https://github.com/pyOpenSci/software-review/issues/issue-number)

[ x ] Add devicely to the pyOpenSci website. @arianesasso, please open a pr to update this file: to add your package and name to the list of contributors

[ x ] @arianesasso, @willingc and @agricolab if you have time and are open to being listed on our website, please add yourselves to this file via a pr so we can list you on our website as contributors!

It looks like you would like to submit this package to JOSS. Here are the next steps:

[ x ] Login to the JOSS website and fill out the JOSS submission form using your Zenodo DOI. When you fill out the form, be sure to mention and link to the approved pyOpenSci review. JOSS will tag your package for expedited review if it is already pyOpenSci approved.

[ ] Wait for a JOSS editor to approve the presubmission (which includes a scope check)

[ ] Once the package is approved by JOSS, you will be given instructions by JOSS about updating the citation information in your README file.

[ ] When the JOSS review is complete, add a comment to your review in the pyOpenSci software-review repo that it has been approved by JOSS.

All -- if you have any feedback for us about the review process please feel free to share it here. We are always looking to improve our process and our documentation in the contributing-guide. We have also been updating our documentation to improve the process so all feedback is appreciated!

PS: Optional - Move Package to PyOpenSci Organization (BETA)

rOpenSci packages often live in the rOpenSci organization. PyOpenSci is still figuring out whether this model fits for the Python community. If you are interested in this option, let us know and we can provide more instructions for that.

xmnlab commented 3 years ago

@arianesasso, that sounds great! thank you so much.

About Move Package to PyOpenSci Organization, I am checking the steps for that I will be back here with this information soon.

thanks!

xmnlab commented 3 years ago

@arianesasso, I have checked it with @lwasser and, for now, PyOpenSci is still figuring out whether this model fits for the Python community.

We are very open to this option, but first, we would need to understand better why authors from the Python community would like to have this option and we can define a protocol for that.

Do you mind explaining to us why you would like to move your package to PyOpenSci organization?

Thank you so much!

pyOpenSci / software-submission