[PRE REVIEW]: FieldCompare: A Python package for regression testing simulation results

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @dglaeser (Dennis Gläser)
Repository: https://gitlab.com/dglaeser/fieldcompare
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): feature/paper
Version: v1.0.0
Editor: @danielskatz
Reviewers: @idoby, @WilliamJamieson
Managing EiC: Daniel S. Katz

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/aed2111437d48a44a0d6e13bc6da43b2"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/aed2111437d48a44a0d6e13bc6da43b2/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/aed2111437d48a44a0d6e13bc6da43b2/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/aed2111437d48a44a0d6e13bc6da43b2)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @dglaeser. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@dglaeser if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission (please start at the bottom of the list).

Editor instructions

The JOSS submission bot @editorialbot is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @editorialbot can do for you type:

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello human, 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=0.08 s (751.5 files/s, 104163.4 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          46           1154            213           4151
SVG                              2              2              2           1504
XML                              9             48              9            882
Markdown                         2             65              0            224
TeX                              1             19              0            165
YAML                             1             10              1             85
TOML                             1              8              0             52
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            62           1306            225           7063
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1592

[editorialbot]

⚠️ An error happened when generating the pdf.

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.5281/zenodo.1183562 is OK
- 10.11588/ans.2017.1.27447 is OK
- 10.1515/jnma-2021-0081 is OK
- 10.1016/j.camwa.2011.04.012 is OK
- 10.25495/7GXK-RD71 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.5603255 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1007/s00607-008-0004-9 may be a valid DOI for title: A generic grid interface for parallel and adaptive scientific computing. Part II: implementation and tests in DUNE
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2021.108249 may be a valid DOI for title: triSurfaceImmersion: Computing volume fractions and signed distances from triangulated surfaces immersed in unstructured meshes

INVALID DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2011.03.007 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix

[danielskatz]

@dglaeser - In your paper, the orcid https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9646-881X might have some endashes instead of hyphens? I'm not sure what else could lead to Problem with ORCID (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9646-881X) for Dennis Gläser. ORCID looks to be the wrong length (Theoj::Error) Can you check this?

In addition, you could work on the possibly missing/incorrect DOIs that editorialbot suggests, but note that some may be incorrect. 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 after making changes to the .md file or when the references are right to make a new PDF. editorialbot commands need to be the first entry in a new comment.

[dglaeser]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.5281/zenodo.1183562 is OK
- 10.11588/ans.2017.1.27447 is OK
- 10.1007/s00607-008-0004-9 is OK
- 10.1515/jnma-2021-0081 is OK
- 10.1016/j.camwa.2011.04.012 is OK
- 10.25495/7GXK-RD71 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.5603255 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2021.108249 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2011.03.007 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix

[dglaeser]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.advwatres.2011.03.007 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.1183562 is OK
- 10.11588/ans.2017.1.27447 is OK
- 10.1007/s00607-008-0004-9 is OK
- 10.1515/jnma-2021-0081 is OK
- 10.1016/j.camwa.2011.04.012 is OK
- 10.25495/7GXK-RD71 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.5603255 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2021.108249 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[dglaeser]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[dglaeser]

@danielskatz, thanks a lot for your comment! I removed the https://orcid.org/ prefix and then it seemed to work. I also fixed the DOIs, thanks!

[danielskatz]

Thanks @dglaeser.

As we have a shortage of editors with availability, I'll edit this submission. Can you suggest potential reviewers by mentioning them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). You can use (but shouldn't limit yourself to) this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission (please start at the bottom of the list).

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @danielskatz is now the editor

[danielskatz]

@tclune - would you be willing to review this JOSS submission?

[danielskatz]

@gvwilson - would you be willing to review this JOSS submission?

[danielskatz]

@fmichonneau - would you be willing to review this JOSS submission?

[dglaeser]

Can you suggest potential reviewers by mentioning them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @

Hi @danielskatz, I looked at the list of reviewers and searched for numerical simulation as domain/topic while filtering for Python as language. From the bottom up, I found the following people: gianthk, ziyiyin97, idoby, mbarzegary, elauksap

[fmichonneau]

@danielskatz I need to decline as I'm about to go on parental leave for a few months.

[danielskatz]

@gianthk, @ziyiyin97, @idoby - would one or two of you be willing to review this JOSS submission?

[idoby]

@gianthk, @ziyiyin97, @idoby - would one or two of you be willing to review this JOSS submission?

Sure, this seems like a useful tool.
However, it will probably take me over a week to get around to reviewing this. Is that acceptable?

[danielskatz]

Yes @idoby - our normal timeline is 2-4 weeks from when the review starts, which doesn't happen until we find at least 2 willing reviewers. I'll add you in the system, but as I said ,we won't start until we find at least 1 more reviewer.

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot add @idoby as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@idoby added to the reviewers list!

[gianthk]

it would be nice but I will have zero time for the next 4 weeks until December 3rd. sorry for that

…

On Tue, 1 Nov 2022 at 14:17, Daniel S. Katz ***@***.***> wrote: @gianthk <https://github.com/gianthk>, @ziyiyin97 <https://github.com/ziyiyin97>, @idoby <https://github.com/idoby> - would one or two of you be willing to review this JOSS submission? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#4895 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADX6FO6JPQSCJ36PYI6XH2DWGEC5LANCNFSM6AAAAAARTCMFL4> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[tclune]

@danielskatz I've been lurking in the hopes that you would get critical mass without me. No specific deadlines, but I'm really just buried in work do to overcommitting myself. Realistically, if this lags deep into December, I should be able to do my bit, as Thanksgiving should give some respite. (Hey, that's what holidays are for, right?)

[danielskatz]

@tclue - thanks. Do you have suggestions for others in the HPC community who might be interested and able to review?

[ziyiyin97]

@gianthk, @ziyiyin97, @idoby - would one or two of you be willing to review this JOSS submission?

Sorry but my recent schedule is full. Hope you find some other experienced reviewers.

[tclune]

Perhaps @WilliamJamieson or @mathomp4 ?

[danielskatz]

👋 @WilliamJamieson or @mathomp4 - Would either of you be willing to review this JOSS submission?

We carry out our open checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[WilliamJamieson]

👋 @WilliamJamieson - Would either of you be willing to review this JOSS submission?

Possibly, though I won't have time this week or next week (I could find time the week of 14 Nov).

[danielskatz]

@WilliamJamieson - thanks, let's do that. I'll try to remember your timing, and please remind me if I prompt you before then

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot add @WilliamJamieson as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@WilliamJamieson added to the reviewers list!

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #4905.