[REVIEW]: ctbench: Compiler-assisted benchmarking for the study of C++ metaprogram compile times

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @JPenuchot (Jules Pénuchot)
Repository: https://github.com/JPenuchot/ctbench
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): main
Version: 1.3.4
Editor: @diehlpk
Reviewers: @dirmeier, @weilewei
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.8270239

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0c6ecc72ecd9442ceb6f44099228af9d"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0c6ecc72ecd9442ceb6f44099228af9d/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0c6ecc72ecd9442ceb6f44099228af9d/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0c6ecc72ecd9442ceb6f44099228af9d)

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

@dirmeier & @r-barnes, your review will be checklist based. Each of you will have a separate checklist that you should update when carrying out your review.
First of all you need to run this command in a separate comment to create the checklist:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @diehlpk 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 ✨

Checklists

📝 Checklist for @dirmeier

📝 Checklist for @weilewei

[editorialbot]

Hello humans, I'm @editorialbot, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks.

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

@editorialbot commands

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

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.06 s (1215.3 files/s, 95633.2 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SVG                              5             25              0           1085
C++                             18            328            280           1065
JSON                             9              0              0            637
Markdown                         3            114              0            394
C/C++ Header                    13            127            245            305
CMake                           15             95            128            234
TeX                              1             20              0            206
YAML                             4              4              1            199
Bourne Shell                     2             18              1             37
Dockerfile                       1              7              3             29
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            71            738            658           4191
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 926

[editorialbot]

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

[editorialbot]

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1145/1173706.1173746 is OK
- 10.1137/110830125 is OK
- 10.1109/hpcsim.2012.6266939 is OK
- 10.1016/B978-0-12-385963-1.00026-5 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[r-barnes]

Review checklist for @r-barnes

Conflict of interest

• I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

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 https://github.com/JPenuchot/ctbench?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@JPenuchot) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
• Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
• Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
• Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
• Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

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 functionality 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

• Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
• A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
• State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
• Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
• References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

[r-barnes]

@JPenuchot - I've started my review, but I hit build issues. I've opened issues for those and will wait until they're resolved before continuing.

[JPenuchot]

Hello @r-barnes, I'm working on resolving your issues. Thanks for your time, this project really needed an external point of view. :)

[JPenuchot]

@r-barnes I just closed all issues as they seem to be resolved for Ubuntu 23.04 and the changes were implemented a month ago. I've provided a list of dependencies for Ubuntu, proposed a way to fetch Sciplot without system-wide install, corrected CMake version inconsistencies, and made sure everything builds and runs on Ubuntu 23.04 by adding a CI pipeline for it.

[diehlpk]

@dirmeier, @r-barnes could you please have a look?

[diehlpk]

@dirmeier, @r-barnes could you please have a look?

[diehlpk]

@dirmeier, @r-barnes could you please have a look?

[dirmeier]

Hi @diehlpk, thanks for the reminder. Yes, as soon as I find the time (should be this weekend), I will have a look. Simon

[diehlpk]

@dirmeier, @r-barnes could you please have a look?

[diehlpk]

@dirmeier, @r-barnes could you please have a look?

[diehlpk]

@dirmeier, @r-barnes could you please have a look?

[dirmeier]

Review checklist for @dirmeier

Conflict of interest

• I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

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 https://github.com/JPenuchot/ctbench?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@JPenuchot) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
• Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
• Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
• Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
• Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

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 functionality 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

• Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
• A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
• State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
• Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
• References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

[diehlpk]

Hi @r-barnes how is your review going?

[editorialbot]

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1145/1173706.1173746 is OK
- 10.1137/110830125 is OK
- 10.1109/hpcsim.2012.6266939 is OK
- 10.1016/B978-0-12-385963-1.00026-5 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

👋 @openjournals/csism-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉📄 Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#4498, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

[danielskatz]

@JPenuchot - I'm suggesting a bunch of changes in JPenuchot/ctbench#33 - please check these carefully to ensure I'm not changing your intent, and then either merge this or let me know what you think is incorrect. Then we can proceed.

[JPenuchot]

@danielskatz - All good, thanks for the proofreading :)

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot recommend-accept

[editorialbot]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[editorialbot]

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1145/1173706.1173746 is OK
- 10.1137/110830125 is OK
- 10.1109/hpcsim.2012.6266939 is OK
- 10.1016/B978-0-12-385963-1.00026-5 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

👋 @openjournals/csism-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉📄 Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#4502, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

[danielskatz]

@JPenuchot - I see that my changes were merged into the main branch of your repo, but the paper is being built from the JOSS branch. What's the difference between the paper.md/bib in main and joss, other than my changes? Should my changes just be moved in the joss branch? or should we be building from main?

[JPenuchot]

I think we can build it from the main branch. Do you want me to change that?

[JPenuchot]

And the difference between the JOSS branch and the main branch is that the JOSS one did not receive the updates, so I think it's better to simply track main. There haven't been any changes except your corrections since I uploaded it to Zenodo.

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot set main as branch

[editorialbot]

Done! branch is now main

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot recommend-accept

@JPenuchot - please check this after it finishes building to make sure it's all ok - I will too

[editorialbot]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[editorialbot]

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1145/1173706.1173746 is OK
- 10.1137/110830125 is OK
- 10.1109/hpcsim.2012.6266939 is OK
- 10.1016/B978-0-12-385963-1.00026-5 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

👋 @openjournals/csism-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉📄 Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#4504, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

[danielskatz]

@JPenuchot - this seems ready to go to me - please confirm when you get a chance, and we'll proceed

[JPenuchot]

@danielskatz - Good to me too, thank you :)

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot accept

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

Ensure proper citation by uploading a plain text CITATION.cff file to the default branch of your repository.

If using GitHub, a Cite this repository menu will appear in the About section, containing both APA and BibTeX formats. When exported to Zotero using a browser plugin, Zotero will automatically create an entry using the information contained in the .cff file.

You can copy the contents for your CITATION.cff file here:

CITATION.cff

cff-version: "1.2.0"
authors:
- family-names: Penuchot
  given-names: Jules
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6377-6880"
- family-names: Falcou
  given-names: Joel
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5380-7375"
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8270239
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - family-names: Penuchot
    given-names: Jules
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6377-6880"
  - family-names: Falcou
    given-names: Joel
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5380-7375"
  date-published: 2023-08-23
  doi: 10.21105/joss.05165
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 88
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 5165
  title: ctbench - compile-time benchmarking and analysis
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05165"
  volume: 8
title: ctbench - compile-time benchmarking and analysis

If the repository is not hosted on GitHub, a .cff file can still be uploaded to set your preferred citation. Users will be able to manually copy and paste the citation.

Find more information on .cff files here and here.

[editorialbot]

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

[editorialbot]

🚨🚨🚨 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.05165 joss-papers#4505
1. Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05165
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...

[danielskatz]

Congratulations to @JPenuchot (Jules Pénuchot) and co-author on your publication!!

And thanks to @dirmeier and @weilewei for reviewing, and to @diehlpk for editing!
JOSS depends completely on volunteers and wouldn't be able to work without you

[editorialbot]

🎉🎉🎉 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](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05165/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05165)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05165">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05165/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.05165/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05165

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

The 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: https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/join
• Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss