[REVIEW]: pyuca: a Python implementation of the Unicode Collation Algorithm

[whedon]

Submitting author: @jtauber (James Tauber)
Repository: https://github.com/jtauber/pyuca
Version: v1.1.2
Editor: @arfon
Reviewer: @luizirber
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.51622

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/28430167d67c58585f014e503baf6f08"><img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/28430167d67c58585f014e503baf6f08/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/28430167d67c58585f014e503baf6f08/status.svg)](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/28430167d67c58585f014e503baf6f08)

Reviewer questions

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 (v1.1.1)?
• Archive: Does the software archive resolve?

Functionality

• Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
• Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
• Performance: Have the performance claims of the software been confirmed?

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 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

Compiled paper PDF: 10.21105.joss.00021.pdf

• 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)?

[arfon]

/ cc @openjournals/joss-reviewers - would anyone be willing to review this submission?

If you would like to review this submission then please comment on this thread so that others know you're doing a review (so as not to duplicate effort). Something as simple as :hand: I am reviewing this will suffice.

Reviewer instructions

• Please work through the checklist at the start of this issue.
• If you need any further guidance/clarification take a look at the reviewer guidelines here http://joss.theoj.org/about#reviewer_guidelines
• Please make a publication recommendation at the end of your review

Any questions, please ask for help by commenting on this issue! 🚀

[luizirber]

✋ I am reviewing this

[luizirber]

• There are no performance claims, so should I will just check the box?
• Although test.py have examples, the usage in the README could include an example words list (like ["cafe", "caff", "café"] from this test)
• The author affiliation is missing in paper.md
• There are no community guidelines (Add a CONTRIBUTING file?)

Just some minor corrections, looks very good otherwise! @jtauber @arfon

[jtauber]

I'll add the ["cafe", "caff", "café"] example to README and add a CONTRIBUTING file.

As to affiliation, I normally leave it blank as my scholarly work is independent (on academia.edu I'm under independent.academia.edu). I could put my company but it's not really relevant to this work.

[jtauber]

@luizirber @arfon

I've updated the README.md and added a CONTRIBUTING.md.

One question (besides the outstanding affiliation question): do I need to re-release and mint a new DOI to include these changes?

[luizirber]

@jtauber I left a comment in the commit, I'll let @arfon answer about the affiliation and re-relase and new DOI questions.

[arfon]

One question (besides the outstanding affiliation question): do I need to re-release and mint a new DOI to include these changes?

Ideally yes please!

[jtauber]

@luizirber I've addressed your comment. Thank you!
@arfon no problem doing another release. Did you want me to do anything about affiliation first?

[arfon]

@arfon no problem doing another release. Did you want me to do anything about affiliation first?

Leaving it blank is fine.

[jtauber]

Okay, I'll re-release and mint another DOI.

[jtauber]

@luizirber @arfon re-released with new DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.51622

[jtauber]

Note the version has changed to 1.1.2 too.

[arfon]

👍 thanks for the review @luizirber!

[arfon]

@jtauber http://dx.doi.org/10.21105/joss.00021 🎉

[jtauber]

Thanks @luizirber and @arfon. 🎉