[REVIEW]: TESPy: Thermal Engineering Systems in Python #2178

whedon · 2020-04-20T16:23:46Z

Submitting author: @fwitte (Francesco Witte)
Repository: https://github.com/oemof/tespy
Version: v0.2.1
Editor: @kyleniemeyer
Reviewer: @arosen93, @corentin-dev
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.3837555

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/590b0b4767606bce4d0ebe397d4b7a4f"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/590b0b4767606bce4d0ebe397d4b7a4f/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/590b0b4767606bce4d0ebe397d4b7a4f/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/590b0b4767606bce4d0ebe397d4b7a4f)

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

@arosen93 & @corentin-dev, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations

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

✨ Please try and complete your review in the next two weeks ✨

Review checklist for @arosen93

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 repository url?
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 (@fwitte) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

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: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
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?

Review checklist for @corentin-dev

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 repository url?
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 (@fwitte) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

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: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
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?

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

whedon · 2020-04-20T16:23:49Z

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @arosen93, @corentin-dev 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:

Set yourself as 'Not watching' https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews:

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

whedon · 2020-04-20T16:24:09Z

Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

- 10.1021/ie4033999 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1109/mcse.2011.37 is OK
- 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2019.114750 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-662-49568-1 is OK
- 10.1016/j.esr.2018.07.001 is OK
- 10.5281/ZENODO.591265 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-7091-1182-6 is OK
- 10.1144/petgeo2016-050 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

whedon · 2020-04-20T16:24:19Z

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

kyleniemeyer · 2020-04-20T16:24:30Z

👋 @fwitte @arosen93 @corentin-dev the actual review will take place in here. Thanks!

kyleniemeyer · 2020-04-20T16:26:16Z

@arosen93 linking your comments here: oemof/tespy#180

fwitte · 2020-04-20T17:07:12Z

@whedon commands

whedon · 2020-04-20T17:07:14Z

Here are some things you can ask me to do:

# List Whedon's capabilities
@whedon commands

# List of editor GitHub usernames
@whedon list editors

# List of reviewers together with programming language preferences and domain expertise
@whedon list reviewers

EDITORIAL TASKS

# Compile the paper
@whedon generate pdf

# Compile the paper from alternative branch
@whedon generate pdf from branch custom-branch-name

# Ask Whedon to check the references for missing DOIs
@whedon check references

# Ask Whedon to check repository statistics for the submitted software
@whedon check repository

fwitte · 2020-04-20T18:28:15Z

@whedon generate pdf from branch feature/joss_paper_review

whedon · 2020-04-20T18:28:18Z

Attempting PDF compilation from custom branch feature/joss_paper_review. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon · 2020-04-20T18:28:54Z

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

fwitte · 2020-04-20T21:40:47Z

@whedon generate pdf from branch feature/joss_paper_review

whedon · 2020-04-20T21:40:50Z

Attempting PDF compilation from custom branch feature/joss_paper_review. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon · 2020-04-20T21:41:26Z

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

Andrew-S-Rosen · 2020-04-27T04:03:22Z

@fwitte: I can confirm that, in my view, TESPy fulfills all the required checkboxes for the review. In particular, I am very impressed with the extensive documentation and examples provided with the code. I also think the manuscript is greatly improved, now that it more clearly specifies the variables used and takes a more general approach with regards to the equations. I can confirm that the code works as-advertised, and the modular nature of the package is self-evident. I still would like to test out the code for a few more days (and will provide any minor remaining comments then -- probably just clarifications) but will certainly complete the review by the 2-week suggested deadline.

Very minor comment. When you say "If you have further questions regarding the tests, do not bother to contact us", it makes it sound like you should not be contacted if there are questions. The phrase that makes more sense here is "do not hesitate to contact us." I also left a few minor comments on the docs here.

fwitte · 2020-04-27T05:48:07Z

@arosen93: Thank you very much for your comments, take your time and have fun :).

Very minor comment. When you say "If you have further questions regarding the tests, do not bother to contact us", it makes it sound like you should not be contacted if there are questions. The phrase that makes more sense here is "do not hesitate to contact us."

Haha, I like this one. When there is too much work on the desk, you must find your priorities... Thank you very much for the hint! I addressed this over at oemof/tespy#181 (https://tespy--181.org.readthedocs.build/en/181/developing_tespy.html#tests).

I also left a few minor comments on the docs here.

Addressed these comments as well.

Have a nice week!

Andrew-S-Rosen · 2020-05-03T23:31:41Z

@fwitte, @kyleniemeyer -- my review is completed. The code is well-documented with an extensive set of (working) examples, there are robust unit-tests, and there is a clear need for such a program in the community. I am happy to recommend TESPy for publication in JOSS.

kyleniemeyer · 2020-05-04T02:55:22Z

Thanks @arosen93!

kyleniemeyer · 2020-05-04T02:57:07Z

Hi @corentin-dev, just wanted to check in on the status of your review—no rush though, we understand that things are not normal right now.

corentin-dev · 2020-05-04T05:37:05Z

Hi, at the moment I got no time to work on it. My review is scheduled to start this week. Best regards, Corentin

…

On 04/05/2020 04:57, Kyle Niemeyer wrote: Hi @corentin-dev <https://github.com/corentin-dev>, just wanted to check in on the status of your review—no rush though, we understand that things are not normal right now. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#2178 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AOOO3ODBDC23LUEQR2RZWA3RPYVI7ANCNFSM4MMSR5NA>.

fwitte · 2020-05-04T05:48:35Z

@whedon generate pdf from branch feature/joss_paper_review

whedon · 2020-05-04T05:48:38Z

Attempting PDF compilation from custom branch feature/joss_paper_review. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon · 2020-05-04T05:49:05Z

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

fwitte · 2020-05-04T05:51:37Z

@whedon generate pdf from branch feature/joss_paper_review

whedon · 2020-05-04T05:51:40Z

Attempting PDF compilation from custom branch feature/joss_paper_review. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon · 2020-05-04T05:52:17Z

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

fwitte · 2020-05-21T06:29:49Z

@whedon generate pdf from branch feature/joss_paper_review

whedon · 2020-05-21T06:29:52Z

Attempting PDF compilation from custom branch feature/joss_paper_review. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon · 2020-05-21T06:30:33Z

👉 Check article proof 📄 👈

fwitte · 2020-05-21T12:18:22Z

@whedon check references

whedon · 2020-05-21T12:18:53Z

Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

- 10.1021/ie4033999 is OK
- 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1109/mcse.2011.37 is OK
- 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2019.114750 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-662-49568-1 is OK
- 10.1016/j.esr.2018.07.001 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.591265 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-7091-1182-6 is OK
- 10.1144/petgeo2016-050 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.29172/928700ef130543aeab15117d0a461239 may be missing for title: ThermoPower

INVALID DOIs

- None

fwitte · 2020-05-21T13:30:50Z

Hi @kyleniemeyer,
version 0.3.0 has been published, archive to be found here: https://zenodo.org/record/3837555.
Thanks to all of you for your efforts and support 🎉 🍻!
Best
Francesco

kyleniemeyer · 2020-05-21T19:14:51Z

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.3837555 as archive

whedon · 2020-05-21T19:14:55Z

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.3837555 is the archive.

kyleniemeyer · 2020-05-21T19:33:07Z

@whedon accept

whedon · 2020-05-21T19:33:10Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

whedon · 2020-05-21T19:33:34Z

Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

- 10.1021/ie4033999 is OK
- 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1109/mcse.2011.37 is OK
- 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2019.114750 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-662-49568-1 is OK
- 10.1016/j.esr.2018.07.001 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.591265 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-7091-1182-6 is OK
- 10.1144/petgeo2016-050 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.29172/928700ef130543aeab15117d0a461239 may be missing for title: ThermoPower

INVALID DOIs

- None

whedon · 2020-05-21T19:33:45Z

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

Check final proof 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#1458

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in openjournals/joss-papers#1458, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true

kyleniemeyer · 2020-05-21T19:35:14Z

@whedon accept deposit=true

whedon · 2020-05-21T19:35:17Z

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

whedon · 2020-05-21T19:36:04Z

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

whedon · 2020-05-21T19:36:05Z

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.02178 joss-papers#1459
Wait a couple of minutes to verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02178
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? notify your editorial technical team...

kyleniemeyer · 2020-05-22T05:23:40Z

Congrats @fwitte on your article's publication in JOSS!

Many thanks to @arosen93 and @corentin-dev for reviewing this submission.

whedon · 2020-05-22T05:23:43Z

🎉🎉🎉 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.02178/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02178)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02178">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02178/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02178/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02178

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.org/donate-to-joss

whedon added the review label Apr 20, 2020

whedon assigned kyleniemeyer Apr 20, 2020

whedon mentioned this issue Apr 20, 2020

[PRE REVIEW]: TESPy: Thermal Engineering Systems in Python #2109

Closed

fwitte mentioned this issue Apr 20, 2020

Comments on JOSS Manuscript oemof/tespy#180

Closed

whedon assigned Andrew-S-Rosen Apr 21, 2020

whedon added the recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. label May 21, 2020

whedon added accepted published Papers published in JOSS labels May 21, 2020

kyleniemeyer closed this as completed May 22, 2020

editorialbot mentioned this issue Oct 30, 2023

[PRE REVIEW]: ETHOS.FINE: A Framework for Integrated Energy System Assessment #5965

Closed

This was referenced Dec 9, 2023

[PRE REVIEW]: PyHD - PyHeatDemand - Processing Tool for Heat Demand Data #6041

Closed

[PRE REVIEW]: STReNGTHS, a python package to model and simulate reaction-diffusion systems #6153

Closed

editorialbot mentioned this issue Feb 13, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: EPyT-C: A Python package for water quality modeling in water distribution systems #6348

Closed

editorialbot mentioned this issue Nov 18, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: Virtual Engineering: Python framework for engineering process design #7498

Open

[REVIEW]: TESPy: Thermal Engineering Systems in Python #2178

[REVIEW]: TESPy: Thermal Engineering Systems in Python #2178

Comments

whedon commented Apr 20, 2020 • edited Loading

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Review checklist for @arosen93

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

Review checklist for @corentin-dev

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

whedon commented Apr 20, 2020

whedon commented Apr 20, 2020

whedon commented Apr 20, 2020

kyleniemeyer commented Apr 20, 2020

kyleniemeyer commented Apr 20, 2020

fwitte commented Apr 20, 2020

whedon commented Apr 20, 2020

fwitte commented Apr 20, 2020

whedon commented Apr 20, 2020

whedon commented Apr 20, 2020

fwitte commented Apr 20, 2020

whedon commented Apr 20, 2020

whedon commented Apr 20, 2020

Andrew-S-Rosen commented Apr 27, 2020 • edited Loading

fwitte commented Apr 27, 2020

Andrew-S-Rosen commented May 3, 2020

kyleniemeyer commented May 4, 2020

kyleniemeyer commented May 4, 2020

corentin-dev commented May 4, 2020 via email

fwitte commented May 4, 2020

whedon commented May 4, 2020

whedon commented May 4, 2020

fwitte commented May 4, 2020

whedon commented May 4, 2020

whedon commented May 4, 2020

fwitte commented May 21, 2020

whedon commented May 21, 2020

whedon commented May 21, 2020

fwitte commented May 21, 2020

whedon commented May 21, 2020

fwitte commented May 21, 2020 • edited Loading

kyleniemeyer commented May 21, 2020

whedon commented May 21, 2020

kyleniemeyer commented May 21, 2020

whedon commented May 21, 2020

whedon commented May 21, 2020

whedon commented May 21, 2020

kyleniemeyer commented May 21, 2020

whedon commented May 21, 2020

whedon commented May 21, 2020

whedon commented May 21, 2020

kyleniemeyer commented May 22, 2020

whedon commented May 22, 2020

whedon commented Apr 20, 2020 •

edited

Loading

Andrew-S-Rosen commented Apr 27, 2020 •

edited

Loading

fwitte commented May 21, 2020 •

edited

Loading