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]: Cadabra2: computer algebra for field theory revisited #1118

Open
whedon opened this Issue Dec 6, 2018 · 7 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@whedon
Collaborator

whedon commented Dec 6, 2018

Submitting author: @kpeeters (Kasper Peeters)
Repository: https://github.com/kpeeters/cadabra2
Version: 2.2.2
Editor: @danielskatz
Reviewer: @StewMH, @henrik227
Archive: Pending

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/50097b222eb0c6fed339e8a24196dd75"><img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/50097b222eb0c6fed339e8a24196dd75/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/50097b222eb0c6fed339e8a24196dd75/status.svg)](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/50097b222eb0c6fed339e8a24196dd75)

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

@StewMH & @henrik227, 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 @StewMH

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?
  • Version: Does the release version given match the GitHub release (2.2.2)?
  • Authorship: Has the submitting author (@kpeeters) 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 @henrik227

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?
  • Version: Does the release version given match the GitHub release (2.2.2)?
  • Authorship: Has the submitting author (@kpeeters) 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

This comment has been minimized.

Collaborator

whedon commented Dec 6, 2018

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @StewMH, 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:

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
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Collaborator

whedon commented Dec 6, 2018

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

This comment has been minimized.

Collaborator

danielskatz commented Dec 6, 2018

Hi @StewMH and @henrik227 - thanks again for agreeing. Please read the first comment in this issue, then proceed to perform your review, checking off the boxes in that issue under your name as you do so. If you have any questions, please let me know.

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Collaborator

whedon commented Dec 6, 2018

@danielskatz

This comment has been minimized.

Collaborator

danielskatz commented Dec 10, 2018

👋 @StewMH @henrik227 - I hope you can get started soon, at least by checking the CoI and CoC boxes...

@henrik227

This comment has been minimized.

Collaborator

henrik227 commented Dec 10, 2018

I was planning to start today, but it will probably take me a few days to go through the full list.

@henrik227

This comment has been minimized.

Collaborator

henrik227 commented Dec 13, 2018

The only thing I can find regarding guidelines for contributors is this. @danielskatz Is that considered sufficient?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment