Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @timClicks, @linuxscout it looks like you're currently assigned to review 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

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

@whedon generate pdf

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

👋 @timClicks, @linuxscout - your job as a reviewer is to examine the paper and software repo, and to check off items in your review list as possible. When you have some issue where improvement is needed, either flag it here or with a new issue in the repository (mentioning this review issue). If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. (FYI, I'm mostly off-line this week and next and will be slower to respond than normal.)

Thanks @danielskatz. I'm also away until the middle of next week. I will aim to have my review completed by next Friday.

I work on review

👋 @linuxscout - thanks for your work so far. Are there issues that are preventing you from checking the remaining boxes? If so, please flag them here or with new issues in the repository (mentioning this review issue).

@whedon remind @timClicks in 6 days

Reminder set for @timClicks in 6 days

I work on testing the software.
For the automated tests, there is none in the repository.

No automated tests
lisc-tools/lisc#22

As we say in the review criteria

Authors are strongly encouraged to include an automated test suite covering the core functionality of their software.

• Good: An automated test suite hooked up to an external service such as Travis-CI or similar
• OK: Documented manual steps that can be followed to objectively check the expected functionality of the software (e.g. a sample input file to assert behavior)
• Bad (not acceptable): No way for you the reviewer to objectively assess whether the software works

So we do not require automated tests (though we encourage them), but we do require some tests.

In this case, if there are manual tests that you think are sufficient "to objectively check the expected functionality of the software (e.g. a sample input file to assert behavior)", that's enough for this criterion to be checked.

I think that tutorials are good as tests.

There are tests! In the folder lisc/tests is a set of unit-tests. So, from the repository home, they are in lisc/tests.

They are, I would say often smoke-tests, in that there is not always strong accuracy checking, but there are at least sanity check tests.

They are written with pytest. If you want to run them locally, then, with pytest installed, from inside the lisc code folder (so in lisc/lisc) run:
pytest .

I realize now it's not really documented anywhere how to run the tests. Is there a convention on how / where to note tests and how to run them?

Tests are also integrated with travis:
https://travis-ci.org/lisc-tools/lisc

You might add this info to the README, but certainly should add it to https://lisc-tools.github.io/lisc/, perhaps after installation (after you install, you test to make sure things are working...)

What I should do now?

What I should do now?

Nothing - your part is done, and thanks!

We're now waiting for @timClicks to do his review, check off his items, bring up needed changes, etc. He was away, but said he would have his review done around now.

I think we're also waiting for @TomDonoghue to add something about how to run the tests to the documentation.

👋 @timClicks, please update us on how your review is going.

@danielskatz My recommendation: accept, subject to the test amendments that have been mentioned already :)

I've worked through the tutorials, and think that this a very handy package.

In general, the API documentation is in an OK state, rather than a Good state (as per the review criteria). That reflects the relative immaturity of the project. lisc is in a much better state than other packages that are released at a 0.1 state.

As a side comment, the tests are written using a very common test framework for Python applications (pytest). However, this isn't included as a dependency in the requirements.txt file so installing the test framework manually is required.

@TomDonoghue thanks for taking the time to submit this to JOSS.

@danielskatz @linuxscout @TomDonoghue Sincerely apologise for delaying this process.

👋 @TomDonoghue - so it seem like the only remaining action for you is to add something about how to run the tests to the documentation.

@whedon generate pdf

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

@whedon generate pdf

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

@whedon set v0.1.1 as version

OK. v0.1.1 is the version.

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.3462035 as archive

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.3462035 is the archive.

@whedon accept

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

OK DOIs

- 10.1145/2623330.2623667 is OK
- 10.1145/3097983.3098057 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2012.04.019 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

Check final proof 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#983

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in openjournals/joss-papers#983, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true

@TomDonoghue - please see lisc-tools/lisc#25

@danielskatz - thanks for wording updates / fixes! I have merged the PR.

@whedon generate pdf

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

@whedon accept

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

OK DOIs

- 10.1145/2623330.2623667 is OK
- 10.1145/3097983.3098057 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2012.04.019 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

Check final proof 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#984

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in openjournals/joss-papers#984, 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 accept deposit=true

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

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

🚨🚨🚨 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 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#985
1. Wait a couple of minutes to verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01674
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...

@TomDonoghue - this seems to be taking a bit longer than normal to have the DOI work - It should work eventually...

@timClicks & @linuxscout - thanks for reviewing!

👋 @arfon - any insight on the DOI delay here?

never mind - now working...

👋 @arfon - any insight on the DOI delay here?

Looks like it's resolving now.

🎉🎉🎉 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.01674/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01674)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01674">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01674/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01674/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01674

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: https://joss.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
• Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.salsalabs.org/donate-to-joss

Thank you @danielskatz for managing this submission!