-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 39
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[REVIEW]: SCAS dashboard: A tool to intuitively and interactively analyze Slurm cluster usage #6017
Comments
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:
For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:
|
|
Wordcount for |
Failed to discover a |
|
@aturner-epcc, @apjez, and @verolero86 - Thanks for agreeing to review this submission. As you can see above, you each should use the command 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 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. |
@wathom - To fix the editorialbot complaint about not finding a Statement of need section, I'm suggesting some changes to how section headings are formatted in Bioinformatics-Munich/scas_dashboard#1 - this is what JOSS papers typically use, and I don't think it makes any difference to the formatted PDF, other than that I've promoted the conclusions header to a 1st level heading. If this seems ok, please merge it. |
Dear @danielskatz - many thanks, I merged the pull request. |
@editorialbot generate pdf |
👋 @aturner-epcc, @apjez, and @verolero86, if you could please create your checklist typing: |
Review checklist for @apjezConflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
|
Review checklist for @aturner-epccConflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
|
👋 @verolero86, if you could please create your checklist typing: |
👋 @aturner-epcc and @apjez, how are things coming along in your reviews? |
Review checklist for @verolero86Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
|
👋 @aturner-epcc, @apjez, and @verolero86, I just wanted to check in with you to see how your reviews are coming, and if there's anything blocking your progress I can help with. |
@wathom I see an failure using the installation instructions provided right at the start.
Am I doing something wrong or missing a step? |
@wathom The link to the API documentation seems invalid. It is listed as: https://yourserver.edu/docs/ (this does not exist) Ah! just a minute. Is this only available when you have the framework running? Can the API docs be hosted in such a way that they are accessible without having to run the service? |
@wathom As well as the two issues above, I think the following items are missing from the submission (happy to be pointed at them if I have missed them):
I see mention of integration with tools like Graphana but expcted to see notes on how this compares to other commonly used tools in this area such as OpenXDMoD and Open OnDemand.
This does not seem to really be present other than "Submit an issue". What level of support can be expected (e.g. this is not funded so we will do our best in our spare time)? Are there any contribution guidelines or coding styles that need to be adhered to? What level of information is required for Issues or PRs? |
Dear @aturner-epcc, |
@aturner-epcc Is this error still present, unfortunatley I can't reproduce it on my platforms. |
👋 @wathom - At this point could you:
I can then move forward with accepting the submission. |
Dear @danielskatz,
|
@editorialbot set v1.0.0 as version |
Done! version is now v1.0.0 |
@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.10064783 as archive |
Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.10064783 |
@editorialbot recommend-accept |
|
|
👋 @openjournals/csism-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#5340, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command |
@editorialbot accept |
|
Ensure proper citation by uploading a plain text CITATION.cff file to the default branch of your repository. If using GitHub, a Cite this repository menu will appear in the About section, containing both APA and BibTeX formats. When exported to Zotero using a browser plugin, Zotero will automatically create an entry using the information contained in the .cff file. You can copy the contents for your CITATION.cff file here: CITATION.cff
If the repository is not hosted on GitHub, a .cff file can still be uploaded to set your preferred citation. Users will be able to manually copy and paste the citation. |
🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘 |
🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨 Here's what you must now do:
Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team... |
Congratulations to @wathom (Thomas W.) and co-authors on your publication!! And thanks to @aturner-epcc and @phargogh for reviewing this work! |
🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉 If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:
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:
|
Great, many thanks to the editor @danielskatz and the reviewers @aturner-epcc and @phargogh |
@editorialbot reaccept (Nothing to see here, just re-accepting this to make sure the JATS output are in the correct format) |
|
|
Submitting author: @wathom (Thomas W.)
Repository: https://github.com/Bioinformatics-Munich/scas_dashboard
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v1.0.0
Editor: @danielskatz
Reviewers: @aturner-epcc, @phargogh
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.10064783
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
@aturner-epcc & @apjez & @verolero86, 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:
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 @aturner-epcc
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: