[REVIEW]: OApackage: A Python package for generation and analysis of orthogonal arrays and conference designs

[whedon]

Submitting author: @eendebakpt (Pieter Eendebak)
Repository: https://github.com/eendebakpt/oapackage
Version: 2.6.3
Editor: @danielskatz
Reviewer: @djmitche, @gsagnol
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.2579025

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/452707998bc50b787c0ba41cf544b1c3"><img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/452707998bc50b787c0ba41cf544b1c3/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/452707998bc50b787c0ba41cf544b1c3/status.svg)](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/452707998bc50b787c0ba41cf544b1c3)

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

@djmitche & @ gsagnol, 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/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations

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

✨ Please try and complete your review in the next two weeks ✨

Review checklist for @djmitche

Conflict of interest

• 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

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS 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?
• Version: 2.6.3
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@eendebakpt) 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

Software paper

• Authors: Does the paper.md 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)?

Review checklist for @gsagnol

Conflict of interest

• 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

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS 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?
• Version: 2.6.3
• Authorship: Has the submitting author (@eendebakpt) 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

Software paper

• Authors: Does the paper.md 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)?

[whedon]

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @djmitche, it looks like you're currently assigned as the reviewer for this paper 🎉.

⭐ Important ⭐

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:

1. Set yourself as 'Not watching' https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews:

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

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

@whedon commands

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

[danielskatz]

👋 @djmitche, @tanaken-basis - thanks for agreeing to review this submission. Please see the instructions above and feel free to ask me if you have any questions. Otherwise, I will assume that you will work through the checklist items above, and will bring up any issues with the submission with the author (via very short discussion here or via new issues in the source repo), who will resolve them.

[djmitche]

It's worth noting that the most recent version is 2.5.2 now. That is the same in the repo and the package repository.

[peendebak]

Any updates to the package to improve based on review comments will go to the dev branch. On a regular basis I will merge dev to master and update the PyPi packages.

[eendebakpt]

@whedon generate pdf from branch feat/updates_paper_alan

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation from custom branch feat/updates_paper_alan. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

[arfon]

@whedon generate pdf from branch feat/updates_paper_alan

Just a heads up @eendebakpt - compiling from a branch doesn't seem to work very well. You might have to merge to master to see new changes with @whedon.

[danielskatz]

All - @tanaken-basis has informed me by email that he needs to be taken off this review because of a personal matter. So I need to find another reviewer - @djmitche, do you have any suggestion for someone else?

[danielskatz]

@gsagnol has been added as the second reviewer - thanks!

[danielskatz]

👋 @gsagnol - thanks for agreeing to review this submission. Please see the instructions above and feel free to ask me if you have any questions. Otherwise, I will assume that you will work through the checklist items above, and will bring up any issues with the submission with the author (via very short discussion here or via new issues in the source repo), who will resolve them.

[djmitche]

This is my first JOSS review so no, I don't have ideas :/

[peendebak]

@whedon list reviewers

[whedon]

Here's the current list of reviewers: https://bit.ly/joss-reviewers

[danielskatz]

👋 @gsagnol - how are things going? When will you be able to start on the review (at least the first 2 checkboxes regarding COIs and the JOSS CoC?)

[gsagnol]

Hi @danielskatz , I wanted to start with the review this week.

I tried to check some of the boxes, but this will not work, although I'm logged in to github. Is google-chrome under linux not supported ? I tried under firefox, but this did not work neither.

[danielskatz]

As in the first comment in this thread, can you:

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

[gsagnol]

That's it... I probably did not accept the invitation, but I guess the invitation link expired:
"Sorry, we couldn't find that repository invitation. It is possible that the invitation was revoked or that you are not logged into the invited account."

[danielskatz]

👋 @arfon - can you help with this? Or tell me what I can do?

[arfon]

@gsagnol - I've re-made the invitation here: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations

[gsagnol]

I installed the latest release from github, and oapackage.__version__ returns 2.5.2, while the check list above asks for 2.5.1. Should the checklist be updated, or should I review a former version ?

[peendebak]

@gsagnol I don't know about JOSS policy on this matter. I submitted version 2.5.1 to JOSS, but since that moment (also based on reviewers comments) I updated the code and the paper and made a new release. I will continue to push updates based on the review to dev and once in a while merge dev to master (with an increase in version number)

[gsagnol]

@peendebak : I would like to have a look at your unit tests. I tried to run
coverage run --source='./oapackage' -m pytest,
but numpy raises some error:
ImportError: /homes/combi/sagnol/.local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/numpy/core/multiarray.so: undefined symbol: _Py_ZeroStruct

Do I need a particular version of numpy to execute the testing suite ? Or is there another way to run the unit tests ?

[gsagnol]

@peendebak : I posted an issue on the OApackage repository about confusing locations for the documentation (readthedocs.io vs. http://pietereendebak.nl)

[peendebak]

@peendebak : I would like to have a look at your unit tests. I tried to run
coverage run --source='./oapackage' -m pytest,
but numpy raises some error:
ImportError: /homes/combi/sagnol/.local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/numpy/core/multiarray.so: undefined symbol: _Py_ZeroStruct

Do I need a particular version of numpy to execute the testing suite ? Or is there another way to run the unit tests ?

The minimal version of numpy is specified in the setup.py (1.13, although perhaps earlier versions of numpy work as well). Can you provide me with some more details of your system (e.g. platform, version of numpy installed, how did you install (pip or compile from source), send output of installation process, version of swig installed)

Can you also send me the output of the following commands?

python -c "import numpy; print(numpy); print(numpy.__version__')
python -c "import oapackage; print(oapackage)"
pytest - v

@gsagnol

[danielskatz]

thanks @gsagnol and @djmitche

[danielskatz]

@eendebakpt - are you happy with everything now? The paper, the software version in the repo, the software that is archived in zenodo?

[eendebakpt]

@danielskatz We are happy with the paper. Could you update the software version to the latest (2.6.2). We made some small updates to the documentation, but did not change the paper.
What do you mean exactly by the software that is archived in zenodo?

[danielskatz]

@whedon set 2.6.2 as version

[whedon]

OK. 2.6.2 is the version.

[danielskatz]

@eendebakpt - you need to make an archive of this version of the software, in zenodo or in another repository.

See the third bullet in https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html#the-review-process

(And see https://guides.github.com/activities/citable-code/ for how to do this for Zenodo)

Once you have done so, paste the DOI of the archive here.

[eendebakpt]

@whedon set 2.6.3 as version

[whedon]

I'm sorry @eendebakpt, I'm afraid I can't do that. That's something only editors are allowed to do.

[eendebakpt]

@danielskatz To create a zenodo archive I updated the version number of the package, it is now 2.6.3

The DOI of the archive is 10.5281/zenodo.2579025

[danielskatz]

@whedon set 2.6.3 as version

[whedon]

OK. 2.6.3 is the version.

[danielskatz]

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.2579025 as archive

[whedon]

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.2579025 is the archive.

[danielskatz]

@whedon accept

[whedon]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[whedon]

Check final proof 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#527

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in openjournals/joss-papers#527, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true

[whedon]

OK DOIs

- http://doi.org/10.1214/18-AOS1723 is OK
- http://doi.org/10.1002/9781119974017 is OK
- http://doi.org/10.1080/00401706.2016.1142903 is OK
- http://doi.org/10.1002/jcd.20236 is OK
- http://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/82.3.589 is OK
- http://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1017939244 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.1198/004017004000000617 may be missing for title: Generalized resolution and minimum aberration criteria for Plackett-Burman and other nonregular factorial designs

INVALID DOIs

- None

[danielskatz]

Thanks to @gsagnol and @djmitche for your reviews

[danielskatz]

@whedon accept deposit=true

[whedon]

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

[whedon]

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

0. Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.01097 joss-papers#528
1. Wait a couple of minutes to verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01097
2. If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
3. Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? notify your editorial technical team...

[whedon]

🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉

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.01097/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01097)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01097">
  <img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01097/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: http://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01097/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01097

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=

[eendebakpt]

@danielskatz @gsagnol @djmitche Thanks for reviewing the package. It helped us to improve the package structure.

[danielskatz]

🎉🎉🎉 This was the 500th accepted paper in JOSS! 🎉🎉🎉