Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[REVIEW]: Basic Threading Examples in JuliaLang v1.3 #54

Open
whedon opened this issue Sep 24, 2019 · 9 comments
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator

@whedon whedon commented Sep 24, 2019

Submitting author: @vtjnash (Jameson Nash)
Repository: https://github.com/vtjnash/JuliaCon2019Threading
Editor: @vchuravy
Reviewer: @ArchRobison, @wsmoses
Archive: Pending

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://submissions.juliacon.org/papers/9ac8bda44df0efa04afdfba84cb90c9e"><img src="https://submissions.juliacon.org/papers/9ac8bda44df0efa04afdfba84cb90c9e/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://submissions.juliacon.org/papers/9ac8bda44df0efa04afdfba84cb90c9e/status.svg)](https://submissions.juliacon.org/papers/9ac8bda44df0efa04afdfba84cb90c9e)

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

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

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

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://proceedings.juliacon.org/guide/reviewers. Any questions/concerns please let @vchuravy know.

Please try and complete your review in the next two weeks

Review checklist for @ArchRobison

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

  • Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
  • License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
  • Authorship: Has the submitting author (@vtjnash) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

  • 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

  • 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.
  • 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)?
  • Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function 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

Paper format

  • Authors: Does the paper.tex file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
  • A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
  • References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?
  • Page limit: Is the page limit for full papers respected by the submitted document?

Content

  • Context: is the scientific context motivating the work correctly presented?
  • Methodology: is the approach taken in the work justified, presented with enough details and reference to reproduce it?
  • Results: are the results presented and compared to approaches with similar goals?

Review checklist for @wsmoses

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

  • Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
  • License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
  • Authorship: Has the submitting author (@vtjnash) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

  • 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

  • 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.
  • 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)?
  • Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function 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

Paper format

  • Authors: Does the paper.tex file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
  • A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
  • References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?
  • Page limit: Is the page limit for full papers respected by the submitted document?

Content

  • Context: is the scientific context motivating the work correctly presented?
  • Methodology: is the approach taken in the work justified, presented with enough details and reference to reproduce it?
  • Results: are the results presented and compared to approaches with similar goals?
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Sep 24, 2019

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @ArchRobison, @wsmoses it looks like you're currently assigned to review this paper 🎉.

⭐️ Important ⭐️

If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/JuliaCon/proceedings-review) 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:

  1. Set yourself as 'Not watching' https://github.com/JuliaCon/proceedings-review:

watching

  1. You may also like to change your default settings for this watching repositories in your GitHub profile here: https://github.com/settings/notifications

notifications

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@whedon commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@whedon generate pdf
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Sep 24, 2019

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Sep 24, 2019

PDF failed to compile for issue #54 with the following error:

/app/vendor/ruby-2.4.4/lib/ruby/2.4.0/find.rb:43:in block in find': No such file or directory - tmp/54 (Errno::ENOENT) from /app/vendor/ruby-2.4.4/lib/ruby/2.4.0/find.rb:43:in collect!'
from /app/vendor/ruby-2.4.4/lib/ruby/2.4.0/find.rb:43:in find' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-efe915e61673/lib/whedon/processor.rb:61:in find_paper_paths'
from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-efe915e61673/bin/whedon:50:in prepare' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor/command.rb:27:in run'
from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor/invocation.rb:126:in invoke_command' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor.rb:387:in dispatch'
from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor/base.rb:466:in start' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bundler/gems/whedon-efe915e61673/bin/whedon:116:in <top (required)>'
from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bin/whedon:23:in load' from /app/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.4.0/bin/whedon:23:in

'

@vchuravy

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@vchuravy vchuravy commented Sep 24, 2019

@vchuravy

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@vchuravy vchuravy commented Sep 24, 2019

@whedon generate pdf

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Sep 24, 2019

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
@vchuravy

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@vchuravy vchuravy commented Sep 24, 2019

@whedon commands

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Sep 24, 2019

Here are some things you can ask me to do:

# List all of Whedon's capabilities
@whedon commands

# Assign a GitHub user as the sole reviewer of this submission
@whedon assign @username as reviewer

# Add a GitHub user to the reviewers of this submission
@whedon add @username as reviewer

# Remove a GitHub user from the reviewers of this submission
@whedon remove @username as reviewer

# List of editor GitHub usernames
@whedon list editors

# List of reviewers together with programming language preferences and domain expertise
@whedon list reviewers

# Change editorial assignment
@whedon assign @username as editor

# Set the software archive DOI at the top of the issue e.g.
@whedon set 10.0000/zenodo.00000 as archive

# Set the software version at the top of the issue e.g.
@whedon set v1.0.1 as version

# Open the review issue
@whedon start review

EDITORIAL TASKS

# Compile the paper
@whedon generate pdf

# Compile the paper from alternative branch
@whedon generate pdf from branch custom-branch-name

# Remind an author or reviewer to return to a review after a
# certain period of time (supported units days and weeks)
@whedon remind @reviewer in 2 weeks

# Ask Whedon to accept the paper and deposit with Crossref
@whedon accept

# Ask Whedon to check the references for missing DOIs
@whedon check references

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Sep 24, 2019

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
2 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.