-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 37
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]: FURY: advanced scientific visualization #3384
Comments
Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @chrishavlin, @rougier, @phamvanvung it looks like you're currently assigned to review this paper 🎉. Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post. ⭐ 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:
For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:
For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:
|
|
|
@chrishavlin, @rougier, and @phamvanvung - Thanks for agreeing to review this submission. Both reviewers have checklists at the top of this thread with the JOSS requirements. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. There are also links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines. Please read the first couple of comments in this issue carefully, so that you can accept the invitation from JOSS and be able to check items, and so that you don't get overwhelmed with notifications from other activities in JOSS. The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention We aim for reviews to be completed within about 2-4 weeks. Please let me know if either of you require some more time. We can also use Whedon (our bot) to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time. |
Some update on my (stalled) review: I have a hard time installing vtk on OSX Catalina. Once solved, I'll be able to resume my review. [EDIT] Solved. |
I am running macOS too (Big Sur) and tried installing the software (all three ways mentioned in the documentation: pip, conda, and development). They work well. It also downloads and installs vtk!=9.0.0,>=8.1.2 (from fury) automatically. |
I've a hard time installing VTK on OSX Catalina, just for the record, the procedure using conda was:
I had no trouble installing Fury following the instructions but the test failed with a segmentation fault (when testing picking). The output was rather scarce so it might be difficult to debug. But I managed to run some of the tutorials (I've not tested all of them). Overall it's a nice and much need package. Each example is a bit slow to start but I suspect this is because of VTK. Concerning the paper, I've some minor comments:
|
I tested the software on: There is an automated test, and I tried executing the test. Many cases showed "PASSED" status, but there are still some errors shown (this might be due to the version compatibility from my environment): The statement of need is clear from the Software paper (PDF). However, though I can figure out the statement of needs from the Documentation page, it is unclear for me (as required from the checklist). Given the limitation of the number of pages, the Software paper does a good job stating its aims, architectures, and quick pointers to comparable and commonly used software packages. They also provide the main differences between these similar packages and FURY. Interested readers can refer to these pointers for further comparisons if needed. Regarding the references:
All in all, I have positive feelings regarding the usability of this software and highly support its use. |
Thanks @phamvanvung - as much as possible, can you edit your comment above to make it clear where you think something needs to be fixed/changed before publication, and where things are suggested improvements that don't block you from checking off review criteria? Given that I think you've checked off all the review criteria, I assume none of your comments are blockers, correct? And it any items are blockers, it you want to create issues in the source repository, you could (but don't have to). |
👋 @rougier, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder). |
👋 @chrishavlin, please update us on how your review is going (this is an automated reminder). |
Hi, |
@phamvanvung - Can you be specific (in the copy of the issue that you will create in https://github.com/fury-gl/fury) about what you think needs to be changed? |
I'm waiting for author's feedback to update my review. |
👋 @Garyfallidis ☝️ |
Thank you all greatly for your reviews. Will get back to you at the soonest possible. |
Done and merged. Apologies we missed that. |
@whedon generate pdf |
@whedon recommend-accept |
No archive DOI set. Exiting... |
@Garyfallidis - At this point could you:
I can then move forward with accepting the submission. |
Sounds good. Working on the different steps. |
@Garyfallidis - any update on this? |
@Garyfallidis - just checking again - this is really almost done and it would be nice to publish it |
We are releasing a new version today (or tomorrow) @danielskatz . |
Hello @danielskatz, the release is tagged as shown here https://github.com/fury-gl/fury/tree/v0.7.1 |
@whedon set v0.7.1 as version |
OK. v0.7.1 is the version. |
@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.5160945 as archive |
OK. 10.5281/zenodo.5160945 is the archive. |
@whedon recommend-accept |
|
|
👋 @openjournals/joss-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published. Check final proof 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#2493 If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in openjournals/joss-papers#2493, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag
|
@whedon accept deposit=true |
|
🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦 |
🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨 Here's what you must now do:
Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team... |
Congratulations to @Garyfallidis (Eleftherios Garyfallidis) and co-authors!! And thanks to @chrishavlin, @rougier, and @phamvanvung for reviewing! |
🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉 If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:
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:
|
Thank you @chrishavlin, @rougier, and @phamvanvung for your positive reviews! Thank you @danielskatz for pushing the |
Submitting author: @Garyfallidis (Eleftherios Garyfallidis)
Repository: https://github.com/fury-gl/fury
Version: v0.7.1
Editor: @danielskatz
Reviewer: @chrishavlin, @rougier, @phamvanvung
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.5160945
Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.
Status
Status badge code:
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
@chrishavlin & @rougier & @phamvanvung, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:
The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @danielskatz know.
✨ Please start on your review when you are able, and be sure to complete your review in the next six weeks, at the very latest ✨
Review checklist for @chrishavlin
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
Review checklist for @rougier
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
Review checklist for @phamvanvung
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: