[REVIEW]: Mallob: Scalable SAT Solving On Demand With Decentralized Job Scheduling #4591

editorialbot · 2022-07-18T19:31:38Z

Submitting author: @domschrei (Dominik Schreiber)
Repository: https://github.com/domschrei/mallob
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss
Version: v1.1.0
Editor: @danielskatz
Reviewers: @ARMartinelli, @massimotorquati
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.6890240

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/700e9010c4080ffe8ae4df21cf1cc899"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/700e9010c4080ffe8ae4df21cf1cc899/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/700e9010c4080ffe8ae4df21cf1cc899/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/700e9010c4080ffe8ae4df21cf1cc899)

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

@ARMartinelli & @massimotorquati, 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 @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 ✨

Checklists

📝 Checklist for @ARMartinelli

📝 Checklist for @massimotorquati

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

editorialbot · 2022-07-18T19:31:39Z

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 · 2022-07-18T19:31:45Z

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=2.34 s (113.5 files/s, 211333.0 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JSON                             4              2              0         427093
C/C++ Header                   129           7840          10522          30563
C++                             68           2083           1224          10027
Python                          26            520            305           2057
Bourne Shell                    31            352            206           1420
TeX                              1             46              0            374
Markdown                         3             79              0            270
CMake                            1             33              9            110
diff                             1              2             41             24
YAML                             1              1              4             18
Dockerfile                       1              4              3              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           266          10962          12314         471965
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

editorialbot · 2022-07-18T19:31:47Z

Wordcount for paper.md is 786

editorialbot · 2022-07-18T19:32:30Z

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/tc.1985.5009385 is OK
- 10.1137/1.9781611974768.7 is OK
- 10.1109/tc.2006.58 is OK
- 10.1109/clustr.2007.4629252 is OK
- 10.7551/mitpress/12274.003.0036 is OK
- 10.1007/s10586-007-0032-9 is OK
- 10.1016/j.artint.2021.103572 is OK
- 10.1109/date.2001.915010 is OK
- 10.7551/mitpress/7056.001.0001 is OK
- 10.1109/hipc.2014.7116905 is OK
- 10.3233/sat190070 is OK
- 10.1609/aimag.v34i2.2450 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-51825-7_9 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-40970-2_15 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-540-24644-2_20 is OK
- 10.1109/sbac-pad.2004.27 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-32409-4_2 is OK
- 10.1016/j.artint.2021.103572 is OK
- 10.3233/faia200987 is OK
- 10.34727/2021/isbn.978-3-85448-046-4_33 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-25209-0 is OK
- 10.1109/ipdps.2011.110 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-642-32820-6_18 is OK
- 10.1613/jair.1.12520 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-80223-3_35 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-24318-4_12 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-540-24605-3_37 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- 10.6084/m9.figshare.20000642 is INVALID

editorialbot · 2022-07-18T19:32:54Z

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

danielskatz · 2022-07-18T19:33:15Z

👋 @ARMartinelli, @massimotorquati - Thanks for agreeing to review this submission.
This is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.

As you can see above, you each should use the command @editorialbot generate my checklist to create your review checklist. @editorialbot commands need to be the first thing in a new comment.

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.

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 openjournals/joss-reviews#4591 so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. In my experience, it is better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.

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 editorialbot (our bot) to set automatic reminders if you know you'll be away for a known period of time.

Please feel free to ping me (@danielskatz) if you have any questions/concerns.

danielskatz · 2022-07-18T19:34:25Z

👋 @domschrei - note that one of your references has an invalid DOI. Please feel free to make changes to your .bib file, then use the command @editorialbot check references to check again, and the command @editorialbot generate pdf when the references are right to make a new PDF. editorialbot commands need to be the first entry in a new comment.

domschrei · 2022-07-19T06:38:42Z

Hi there! 👋 Thank you for reviewing our submission.

Regarding the invalid DOI, this is a figshare reference to our software reproducibility artifact which got us invited to the Euro-Par special issue. The DOI is not active yet, but it should become active together with the Euro-Par '22 proceedings.

ARMartinelli · 2022-07-19T07:46:35Z

Review checklist for @ARMartinelli

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

License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/domschrei/mallob?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@domschrei) 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

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?

danielskatz · 2022-07-20T17:26:04Z

Regarding the invalid DOI, this is a figshare reference to our software reproducibility artifact which got us invited to the Euro-Par special issue. The DOI is not active yet, but it should become active together with the Euro-Par '22 proceedings.

ok, thanks - let's leave it as is then

massimotorquati · 2022-07-22T07:08:21Z

Review checklist for @massimotorquati

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/domschrei/mallob?
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 (@domschrei) 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

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?

ARMartinelli · 2022-07-22T08:43:30Z

@danielskatz, I have finished my review. I have no complaints.

danielskatz · 2022-07-22T11:59:11Z

Thanks @ARMartinelli

danielskatz · 2022-07-22T11:59:54Z

@massimotorquati - I notice your review is almost complete as well - is there anything blocking you from checking the last criterion?

massimotorquati · 2022-07-22T12:03:48Z

Yes, I completed the missing points. I have no objections; the work is OK with me.

danielskatz · 2022-07-22T12:22:15Z

@domschrei - I'm suggesting some minor changes in domschrei/mallob#8. (note that this includes removing the funding agency logo at the end, which would be appropriate on slides or a poster, but not in a paper) Please merge this, or let me know what you disagree with, and we can move forward on acceptance.

danielskatz · 2022-07-22T13:39:58Z

At this point could you:

Make a tagged release of your software, and list the version tag of the archived version here.
Archive the reviewed software in Zenodo or a similar service (e.g., figshare, an institutional repository)
Check the archival deposit (e.g., in Zenodo) has the correct metadata. This includes the title (should match the paper title) and author list (make sure the list is correct and people who only made a small fix are not on it). You may also add the authors' ORCID.
Please list the DOI of the archived version here.

I can then move forward with accepting the submission.

domschrei · 2022-07-23T08:44:50Z

I created a tagged release v1.1.0 and uploaded that version on Zenodo. The DOI is: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6890240

danielskatz · 2022-07-23T12:06:24Z

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.6890240 as archive

editorialbot · 2022-07-23T12:06:26Z

Done! Archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.6890240

danielskatz · 2022-07-23T12:06:44Z

@editorialbot set v1.1.0 as archive

editorialbot · 2022-07-23T12:06:45Z

Done! Archive is now v1.1.0

danielskatz · 2022-07-23T12:07:14Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2022-07-23T15:24:16Z

👋 @openjournals/joss-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#3395, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

danielskatz · 2022-07-23T15:28:53Z

Current status:

paper is proofread, and content is ready to publish
missing DOI is ok, it's a DOI that will be associate with a to-be-published paper
As a Euro-Par associated paper, we need to fix the left column to add appropriate language and logo before final publishing

We're now on hold until the last item is figured out.

danielskatz · 2022-08-03T15:43:35Z

@arfon - can you explain to @domschrei how to finalize the work on this to add the Euro-Par connection?

arfon · 2022-08-05T15:49:15Z

@danielskatz – we need a PR to the paper.md for this submission that looks like this: https://github.com/yogi-tud/space_gpu/pull/5/files

Then you need to do @editorialbot accept

I don't think I know what the Euro-Par DOI is though for this submission?

danielskatz · 2022-08-05T18:55:40Z

👋 @massimotorquati - can you tell us the DOI for the Euro-Par paper this is associated with? (knowing that it's not yet active)

domschrei · 2022-08-05T18:59:44Z

Maybe I can help. There's two DOIs associated with this work:

DOI of the Figshare repository of our Euro-Par artifact: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.20000642 (not active yet)
DOI of the Euro-Par publication itself as given by Springer: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-12597-3_8 (active)

massimotorquati · 2022-08-06T06:25:06Z

That's right. Thanks @domschrei !

domschrei · 2022-08-06T07:35:36Z

And regarding the PR @arfon referenced, the DOI of the publication itself seems to be the correct one to insert. Should I just go ahead and add this line to paper.md?

danielskatz · 2022-08-08T20:45:30Z

yes, please do

domschrei · 2022-08-09T13:23:10Z

@danielskatz Done! domschrei/mallob@0d5889a

danielskatz · 2022-08-09T14:01:43Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2022-08-09T14:02:58Z

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

danielskatz · 2022-08-09T14:08:09Z

@editorialbot accept

editorialbot · 2022-08-09T14:08:10Z

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

editorialbot · 2022-08-09T14:10:01Z

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

editorialbot · 2022-08-09T14:10:01Z

🚨🚨🚨 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.04591 joss-papers#3419
Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04591
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

danielskatz · 2022-08-09T14:18:02Z

Congratulations to @domschrei (Dominik Schreiber) and co-author!!

And thanks to @ARMartinelli and @massimotorquati for reviewing!
We couldn't do this without you

editorialbot · 2022-08-09T14:18:03Z

🎉🎉🎉 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.04591/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04591)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04591">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04591/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04591/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04591

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

domschrei · 2022-08-09T20:17:28Z

Great! Thanks a lot for your work and your help, @danielskatz @ARMartinelli @massimotorquati !

arfon · 2024-04-11T07:19:38Z

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.6890240 as archive

editorialbot · 2024-04-11T07:19:40Z

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.6890240

arfon · 2024-04-11T07:19:49Z

@editorialbot set v1.1.0 as version

editorialbot · 2024-04-11T07:19:52Z

Done! version is now v1.1.0

arfon · 2024-04-11T07:20:18Z

@editorialbot reaccept

☝ @danielskatz – looks like the archive was incorrectly assigned here.

editorialbot · 2024-04-11T07:20:52Z

Rebuilding paper!

editorialbot · 2024-04-11T07:22:26Z

🌈 Paper updated!

New PDF and metadata files 👉 openjournals/joss-papers#5237

editorialbot added CMake Dockerfile Euro-Par Submissions associated with the Euro-Par conference review Shell labels Jul 18, 2022

editorialbot assigned danielskatz Jul 18, 2022

editorialbot mentioned this issue Jul 18, 2022

[PRE REVIEW]: Mallob: Scalable SAT Solving On Demand With Decentralized Job Scheduling #4535

Closed

editorialbot added the recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. label Jul 23, 2022

editorialbot added accepted published Papers published in JOSS labels Aug 9, 2022

danielskatz closed this as completed Aug 9, 2022

[REVIEW]: Mallob: Scalable SAT Solving On Demand With Decentralized Job Scheduling #4591

[REVIEW]: Mallob: Scalable SAT Solving On Demand With Decentralized Job Scheduling #4591

Comments

editorialbot commented Jul 18, 2022 • edited Loading

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Checklists

editorialbot commented Jul 18, 2022

editorialbot commented Jul 18, 2022

editorialbot commented Jul 18, 2022

editorialbot commented Jul 18, 2022

editorialbot commented Jul 18, 2022

danielskatz commented Jul 18, 2022

danielskatz commented Jul 18, 2022

domschrei commented Jul 19, 2022

ARMartinelli commented Jul 19, 2022 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @ARMartinelli

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

danielskatz commented Jul 20, 2022

massimotorquati commented Jul 22, 2022 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @massimotorquati

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

ARMartinelli commented Jul 22, 2022

danielskatz commented Jul 22, 2022

danielskatz commented Jul 22, 2022

massimotorquati commented Jul 22, 2022

danielskatz commented Jul 22, 2022

danielskatz commented Jul 22, 2022

domschrei commented Jul 23, 2022

danielskatz commented Jul 23, 2022

editorialbot commented Jul 23, 2022

danielskatz commented Jul 23, 2022

editorialbot commented Jul 23, 2022

danielskatz commented Jul 23, 2022

editorialbot commented Jul 23, 2022

danielskatz commented Jul 23, 2022

danielskatz commented Aug 3, 2022

arfon commented Aug 5, 2022

danielskatz commented Aug 5, 2022

domschrei commented Aug 5, 2022

massimotorquati commented Aug 6, 2022

domschrei commented Aug 6, 2022

danielskatz commented Aug 8, 2022

domschrei commented Aug 9, 2022

danielskatz commented Aug 9, 2022

editorialbot commented Aug 9, 2022

danielskatz commented Aug 9, 2022

editorialbot commented Aug 9, 2022

editorialbot commented Aug 9, 2022

editorialbot commented Aug 9, 2022

danielskatz commented Aug 9, 2022

editorialbot commented Aug 9, 2022

domschrei commented Aug 9, 2022

arfon commented Apr 11, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 11, 2024

arfon commented Apr 11, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 11, 2024

arfon commented Apr 11, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 11, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 11, 2024

editorialbot commented Jul 18, 2022 •

edited

Loading

ARMartinelli commented Jul 19, 2022 •

edited

Loading

massimotorquati commented Jul 22, 2022 •

edited

Loading