Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 40 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.
Sign up[REVIEW]: Hypothesis: A new approach to property-based testing #1891
Comments
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @luizirber, @djmitche it looks like you're currently assigned to review this paper 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:
|
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
And again, thanks very much for your quick and positive response to the review request. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
If you have any issues or concerns, please let me know here |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
@danielskatz I think I see an error in the paper itself ("exception" instead of "extension"), but I'm not sure where to find the source for that paper. Pointers? |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
see paper.md and paper.bib in the source repo (root level) |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Thanks! Aside from that (minor) issue I don't see any problems here. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Thanks @djmitche! |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Only one nitpick: There is nothing wrong with the LICENSE.txt file per se, but if you put the content of the MPL 2.0 license linked it will show up as All my checkboxes are checked. And I must say this was the easiest review I ever did, but it was somewhat expected because I tend to look for hypothesis dev practices as reference for my projects. The paper is also well written and does a great intro to property testing for scientific projects. Kudos @DRMacIver and @Zac-HD! |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Thanks @luizirber For the licence, I think this is mostly an effect of Github not having fantastic support for monorepos... |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
@danielskatz - I think we're done, all boxes checked and we've merged the suggested wording change |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Thanks all - I'll continue the process, first checking the license issue, then proof-reading and addressing the final steps |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
@whedon generate pdf |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
@DRMacIver & @Zac-HD - regarding the wording in the paper:
Also, please see HypothesisWorks/hypothesis#2212 |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
@whedon check references |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
whedon commentedNov 14, 2019
•
edited by luizirber
Submitting author: @DRMacIver (David MacIver)
Repository: https://github.com/HypothesisWorks/hypothesis/
Version: 4.44.2
Editor: @danielskatz
Reviewer: @luizirber, @djmitche
Archive: Pending
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
@luizirber & @djmitche, 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.
Review checklist for @luizirber
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
Review checklist for @djmitche
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper