-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 36
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
ncompare #146
Comments
Thanks @danielfromearth for making the full submission! Here are the initial editor-in-chief checks. Almost everything we need to start the review is there, but there's one I don't see.
I think you can add this at the top of the single page docs you have now? Basically repeating what you have in the README. Please let me know if you can add that. Editor in Chief checks
Editor comments
|
👋 Hi @NickleDave, thanks for the info! |
Great, thank you @danielfromearth -- sorry I didn't reply sooner. Just letting you know that @tomalrussell has graciously volunteered to be the editor for this review. We are now seeking reviewers and @tomalrussell will reply here with next steps once we have found them. |
Hi @danielfromearth, thanks for the package submission - we've now identified reviewers and can move on to the next steps.. 👋🏻 welcome, @cmarmo and @cmtso! Thank you for volunteering to review Please fill out our pre-review surveyBefore beginning your review, please fill out our pre-review survey. This helps us improve all aspects of our review and better understand our community. No personal data will be shared from this survey - it will only be used in an aggregated format by our Executive Director to improve our processes and programs.
The following resources will help you complete your review:
Please get in touch with any questions or concerns! Your review is due in ~3 weeks: 13 December 2023 |
@tomalrussell , @danielfromearth , sorry for the silence! |
Hi @tomalrussell, it's been a busy two weeks. But I should be able to make the deadline next week. |
Package ReviewPlease check off boxes as applicable, and elaborate in comments below. Your review is not limited to these topics, as described in the reviewer guide
DocumentationThe package includes all the following forms of documentation:
Readme file requirements
The README should include, from top to bottom:
NOTE: If the README has many more badges, you might want to consider using a table for badges: see this example. Such a table should be more wide than high. (Note that the a badge for pyOpenSci peer-review will be provided upon acceptance.)
UsabilityReviewers are encouraged to submit suggestions (or pull requests) that will improve the usability of the package as a whole.
Functionality
For packages also submitting to JOSS
Note: Be sure to check this carefully, as JOSS's submission requirements and scope differ from pyOpenSci's in terms of what types of packages are accepted. The package contains a
Final approval (post-review)
Estimated hours spent reviewing:
|
Hello everybody! Thanks for giving me the opportunity to review Package ReviewPlease check off boxes as applicable, and elaborate in comments below. Your review is not limited to these topics, as described in the reviewer guide
DocumentationThe package includes all the following forms of documentation:
Readme file requirements
The README should include, from top to bottom:
NOTE: If the README has many more badges, you might want to consider using a table for badges: see this example. Such a table should be more wide than high. (Note that the a badge for pyOpenSci peer-review will be provided upon acceptance.)
UsabilityReviewers are encouraged to submit suggestions (or pull requests) that will improve the usability of the package as a whole.
Functionality
For packages also submitting to JOSS
Note: Be sure to check this carefully, as JOSS's submission requirements and scope differ from pyOpenSci's in terms of what types of packages are accepted. The package contains a
Final approval (post-review)
Estimated hours spent reviewing:
|
Hi folks, a quick update: I'm wrapping up some final tweaks to respond to the review comments, and will also hopefully be able to add a JOSS paper to the repo next week. |
My responses to the comments and blank check-boxes from @cmtso's review can be found next to the green checkmarks (✅) below:
|
My responses to the comments and blank check-boxes from @cmarmo's review can be found next to the green checkmarks (✅) below:
|
Hi @tomalrussell, thanks for shepherding and providing editorial review of this submission thus far. We have made changes to the repository to address reviewer recommendations, and responded directly to the reviewers' comments above. In addition, please notice that we have now included a JOSS manuscript in the repository (in the |
Thanks for the super clear responses @danielfromearth ! @cmarmo and @cmtso - over to you to respond to the changes. Discussion is encouraged, we're in the "review follow-up" phase. Could you pay particular attention to the As ever, do ask or drop me a line if you need anything Responses due in ~2 weeks: 31 January. |
Hello @danielfromearth , thank you for all your work and your answers to my comments!
I'm going to check the paper for JOSS in the next week.... sorry for the two steps answer.... |
Hello @danielfromearth, I realized that you are merging your modifications in a @tomalrussell after this nit fixing I consider the author has responded to my review and made changes to my satisfaction. I recommend approving this package. I have also checked the paper for JOSS: I'm copying here the checklist related to JOSS. For packages also submitting to JOSS
Note: Be sure to check this carefully, as JOSS's submission requirements and scope differ from pyOpenSci's in terms of what types of packages are accepted. The package contains a
|
For packages also submitting to JOSS
Note: Be sure to check this carefully, as JOSS's submission requirements and scope differ from pyOpenSci's in terms of what types of packages are accepted. The package contains a
Final approval (post-review)
|
With regard to the
|
Hi @danielfromearth, thanks for the thorough response. On the question of scope for JOSS - in the end this is up to the JOSS editorial team, but do refer to this pyOpenSci review (as for example in this recent JOSS submission openjournals/joss-reviews#5332). I think you have a strong case for On the last few nits - they all look to be resolved on 🎉 Author Wrap Up TasksThere are a few things left to do to wrap up this submission:
JOSS submissionHere are the next steps:
Editor Final ChecksPlease complete the final steps to wrap up this review. @tomalrussell reminder to do the following:
If you have any feedback for us about the review process please feel free to share it here. We are always looking to improve our process and documentation in the peer-review-guide. |
✅ |
Ace! I'll keep an eye on this issue for any updates on your JOSS submission whenever you can make the next steps. You are also invited to write a short blog post about |
hey team. i'm checking in on this issue. did this issue / package get fastraacked through joss? if it did we need to do a few followup steps!
many thanks y'all!! |
Hey @lwasser thanks for checking in! The package DOI updated in the issue header: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06490 |
Fantastic! Thank you @tomalrussell !! We can close it then I think as complete! Thank you all for supporting our open review process!! |
Submitting Author: Daniel Kaufman (@danielfromearth)
All current maintainers: (@danielfromearth)
Package Name:
ncompare
One-Line Description of Package:
ncompare
compares two netCDF files at the command line, by generating a report of the matching and non-matching groups, variables, and attributes.Repository Link: https://github.com/nasa/ncompare
Version submitted: 1.4.0
Editor: @tomalrussell
Reviewer 1: @cmarmo
Reviewer 2: @cmtso
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.10625407
JOSS DOI: 10.21105/joss.06490
Version accepted: 1.7.2
Date accepted (month/day/year): 02/06/2024
Code of Conduct & Commitment to Maintain Package
Description
This tool ("ncompare") compares the structure of two Network Common Data Form (NetCDF) files at the command line. It facilitates rapid, human-readable, multi-file evaluation by generating a formatted display of the matching and non-matching groups, variables, and associated metadata between two NetCDF datasets. The user has the option to colorize the terminal output for ease of viewing. As an option,
ncompare
can save comparison reports in text and/or comma-separated value (CSV) formats.Scope
Please indicate which category or categories.
Check out our package scope page to learn more about our
scope. (If you are unsure of which category you fit, we suggest you make a pre-submission inquiry):
Domain Specific & Community Partnerships
Community Partnerships
If your package is associated with an
existing community please check below:
For all submissions, explain how the and why the package falls under the categories you indicated above. In your explanation, please address the following points (briefly, 1-2 sentences for each):
The target audience is anyone who manages the generation, manipulation, or validation of netCDF files. This package can be applied to to these netCDF file tasks in any scientific discipline; although it would be most relevant to applications with large multidimensional datasets, e.g., for comparing climate models, for Earth science data reanalyses, and for remote sensing data.
The
ncdiff
function in thenco
(netCDF Operators) library, as well asncmpidiff
andnccmp
, compute valuedifferences, but --- as far as we are aware --- do not have a dedicated function to show structural differences between netCDF4 datasets. Our package,
ncompare
provides a light-weight Python-based tool for rapid visual comparisons of group & variable structures, attributes, and chunking.@tag
the editor you contacted:Pre-submission inquiry #142
Technical checks
For details about the pyOpenSci packaging requirements, see our packaging guide. Confirm each of the following by checking the box. This package:
Publication Options
JOSS Checks
paper.md
matching JOSS's requirements with a high-level description in the package root or ininst/
.Note: JOSS accepts our review as theirs. You will NOT need to go through another full review. JOSS will only review your paper.md file. Be sure to link to this pyOpenSci issue when a JOSS issue is opened for your package. Also be sure to tell the JOSS editor that this is a pyOpenSci reviewed package once you reach this step.
Are you OK with Reviewers Submitting Issues and/or pull requests to your Repo Directly?
This option will allow reviewers to open smaller issues that can then be linked to PR's rather than submitting a more dense text based review. It will also allow you to demonstrate addressing the issue via PR links.
Confirm each of the following by checking the box.
Please fill out our survey
submission and improve our peer review process. We will also ask our reviewers
and editors to fill this out.
P.S. Have feedback/comments about our review process? Leave a comment here
Editor and Review Templates
The editor template can be found here.
The review template can be found here.
Footnotes
Please fill out a pre-submission inquiry before submitting a data visualization package. ↩
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: