[REVIEW]: SimSGamE : Scheduling simulator for modern game engines

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @baptisteCoye (Baptiste Coye)
Repository: https://github.com/baptisteCoye/SimSGame
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: 1.0.0
Editor: @danielskatz
Reviewers: @azoitl, @hwloidl
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.6984771

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4a548f7836a51a43f65a8db84662f43b"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4a548f7836a51a43f65a8db84662f43b/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4a548f7836a51a43f65a8db84662f43b/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/4a548f7836a51a43f65a8db84662f43b)

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

@azoitl & @hwloidl, 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 @hwloidl

📝 Checklist for @azoitl

[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=0.07 s (888.1 files/s, 236700.5 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C++                             13            357             27           2237
Jupyter Notebook                24              0           8410           2195
Python                           3            511            310            733
C/C++ Header                    13            163             29            719
TeX                              1             21              0            229
JSON                             2              0              0            224
Markdown                         3             87              0            219
Bourne Shell                     2              8              0             23
make                             1              5              1             17
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            62           1152           8777           6596
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 820

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.ejor.2011.07.054 is OK
- 10.1109/RTAS52030.2021.00025 is OK
- 10.1109/RTCSA52859.2021.00022 is OK
- 10.1109/MC.2016.310 is OK
- 10.1016/S0167-5060(08)70356-X is OK
- 10.1145/361604.361619 is OK
- 10.1287/opre.9.6.841 is OK
- 10.1109/IPDPSW.2019.00013 is OK
- 10.1007/BF00288685 is OK
- 10.1137/0117039 is OK
- 10.1287/opre.21.3.846 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-85665-6_4 is OK
- 10.1080/08985626.2020.1736184 is OK
- 10.1109/ISCAS.2006.1693173 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

⚠️ An error happened when generating the pdf.

[danielskatz]

👋 @azoitl, @hwloidl - 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#4592 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]

👋 @bcoye - In your paper.md file, you have an endash rather then a hyphen in the ORCID for Raymond Namyst. Please change this, then use the command @editorialbot generate pdf to make a new PDF. editorialbot commands need to be the first entry in a new comment.

[hwloidl]

Review checklist for @hwloidl

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://gitlab.inria.fr/bcoye/game-engine-scheduling-simulation?
• 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 (@bcoye) 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?

[hwloidl]

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello @hwloidl, here are the things you can ask me to do:

# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands

# Get a list of all editors's GitHub handles
@editorialbot list editors

# Check the references of the paper for missing DOIs
@editorialbot check references

# Perform checks on the repository
@editorialbot check repository

# Adds a checklist for the reviewer using this command
@editorialbot generate my checklist

# Set a value for branch
@editorialbot set joss-paper as branch

# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf

# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers

[hwloidl]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

⚠️ An error happened when generating the pdf.

[hwloidl]

@danielskatz see some general reviewing questions that I just sent in a separate email; there still seems to be a problem with generating the .pdf for the paper (above)

[danielskatz]

I'm on vacation, and am not sure I saw your email - can you resend it?

Diving into the error message above, it still gets to

Problem with ORCID (0000−0001−7734−1258) for Raymond Namyst. ORCID looks malformed (Theoj::Error)

And it still looks to me like all of the dashes are endashes − rather than hyphens -.

Try changing it to 0000-0001-7734-1258

[danielskatz]

Another problem is that this work is being done in a gitlab instance that is limited to INRIA and collaborators, so community members cannot open issues or make pull requests.

[hwloidl]

@bcoye can you fix the error mentioned on the PRE-REVIEW pages, and by Daniel aboce: ORCID identifiers should contain only '-' (a hyphen) as non-digit identifier; I think you are using an endash (long dash), prbl a cut-and-paste issue; this is important to fix, since it stops us from generating a .pdf out of your paper.md file

[hwloidl]

@bcoye Overall paper.md with Summary and Statement of NEed are good; however I suggest to add a 3rd para in Summary which is more specific about the problem you want to solve (scheduling of a task graph) and the approach you are taking; a short version of paras 3 and 4 from your EuroPar22 paper would work well to this end

[hwloidl]

@bcoye regarding Dan's comment above on "gitlab instance that is limited to INRIA " can you confirm that this repo is open and available without an account? I think I managed to clone the repo without loging in, so this part seems ok to me at this point.

[hwloidl]

@danielskatz can you double check that these messages are reaching the author? I note that the handle (@bcoye) is not bold-faced and not clickable; should he be added to the Review repo to engage in discussions?

[danielskatz]

@bcoye regarding Dan's comment above on "gitlab instance that is limited to INRIA " can you confirm that this repo is open and available without an account? I think I managed to clone the repo without loging in, so this part seems ok to me at this point.

This is not sufficient. The community must have a way to create issues as well as being to create PRs, not just clone the repo. The latter is open source, but the former is needed for this to be a community project and meet the JOSS community guidelines.

[danielskatz]

@danielskatz can you double check that these messages are reaching the author? I note that the handle (@bcoye) is not bold-faced and not clickable; should he be added to the Review repo to engage in discussions?

Yes, there's a problem here - thanks for catching it. I'll try to figure it out

[baptisteCoye]

Hi, sorry couldn't get the notifications.
Yes you are right, i thought a classic gitlab account would be ok to create issues on a public Inria git but it seems it doesn't work (and account creations seems unavailable).
I'll recreate the repository on github, and make the necessary changes regarding the ORCID and add the paragraph @hwloidl was refering to earlier.
Should I send you the new git repository here? (Everything should be done by the end of the day)

[hwloidl]

@bcoye regarding Dan's comment above on "gitlab instance that is limited to INRIA " can you confirm that this repo is open and available without an account? I think I managed to clone the repo without loging in, so this part seems ok to me at this point.

This is not sufficient. The community must have a way to create issues as well as being to create PRs, not just clone the repo. The latter is open source, but the former is needed for this to be a community project and meet the JOSS community guidelines.

Thanks @danielskatz for clarifying the issue. Yes, @baptisteCoye you'll need to create a repo on github and send the link. @danielskatz : is it better to do a new submission of that github repo with paper, and then open a new checklist for doing the review?

[danielskatz]

Hi @azoitl and @hwloidl - pinging again: It looks like you both are satisfied with this to proceed to publication based on your checklists. Is this correct?

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[azoitl]

Hi @azoitl and @hwloidl - pinging again: It looks like you both are satisfied with this to proceed to publication based on your checklists. Is this correct?

@danielskatz yes this is correct. I'm satisfied with this paper and it is ready for publication.

[danielskatz]

@hwloidl - I'm going to assume you are also satisfied (based on your completed checklist) and go ahead - please say something if this is incorrect.

[danielskatz]

👋 @baptisteCoye - 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.

[baptisteCoye]

Here is the DOI of the archived version : 10.5281/zenodo.6984771

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.6984771 as archive

[editorialbot]

Done! Archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.6984771

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot set 1.0.0 as version

[editorialbot]

Done! version is now 1.0.0

[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

- 10.1016/j.ejor.2011.07.054 is OK
- 10.1109/RTAS52030.2021.00025 is OK
- 10.1109/RTCSA52859.2021.00022 is OK
- 10.1109/MC.2016.310 is OK
- 10.1016/S0167-5060(08)70356-X is OK
- 10.1145/361604.361619 is OK
- 10.1287/opre.9.6.841 is OK
- 10.1109/IPDPSW.2019.00013 is OK
- 10.1007/BF00288685 is OK
- 10.1137/0117039 is OK
- 10.1287/opre.21.3.846 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-85665-6_4 is OK
- 10.1080/08985626.2020.1736184 is OK
- 10.1109/ISCAS.2006.1693173 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

👋 @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#3423, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot accept

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet 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.04592 joss-papers#3424
1. Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04592
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 @baptisteCoye (Baptiste Coye) and co-authors!!

And thanks to @azoitl and @hwloidl for reviewing!
We couldn't do this 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.04592/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04592)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04592">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04592/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04592/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04592

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

[baptisteCoye]

Thanks a lot @danielskatz @hwloidl and @azoitl

[hwloidl]

@danielskatz Yes, confirming that I'm happy with the submission and ok to publish (as has happened already. Sorry for the delay in picking up this communication

[hwloidl]

@baptisteCoye thanks for submitting to EuroPar22 and to the special issue in JOSS as well! The extra effort in making this a validated open-source packages is much appreciated!