Joss-reviews: [REVIEW]: pyuvdata: an interface for astronomical interferometeric datasets in python

[whedon]

Submitting author: @bhazelton (Bryna J. Hazelton)
Repository: https://github.com/HERA-Team/pyuvdata
Version: v1.0
Editor: @arfon
Reviewer: @astrofrog
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.297348

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/65cdb0663de92c9559cc95fa63800fff"><img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/65cdb0663de92c9559cc95fa63800fff/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/65cdb0663de92c9559cc95fa63800fff/status.svg)](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/65cdb0663de92c9559cc95fa63800fff)

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) 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 questions

Conflict of interest

• [x] As the reviewer I confirm that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work (such as being a major contributor to the software).

General checks

• [x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
• [x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• [x] Version: Does the release version given match the GitHub release (v1.0)?
• [x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (bhazelton) made major contributions to the software?

Functionality

• [x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
• [x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
• [x] Performance: Have any performance claims of the software been confirmed?

Documentation

• [x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• [x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
• [x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
• [x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g. API method documentation)?
• [x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function of the software can be verified?
• [x] 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

• [x] Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• [x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• [x] References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g. papers, datasets, software)?

[whedon]

Hello human, I'm @whedon. I'm here to help you with some common editorial tasks for JOSS. @astrofrog it looks like you're currently assigned as the reviewer for this paper :tada:.

:star: Important :star:

If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews) repository. As as reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all JOSS reviews 😿

To fix this do the following two things:

1. Set yourself as 'Not watching' https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews:

1. You may also like to change your default settings for this watching repositories in your GitHub profile here: https://github.com/settings/notifications

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@whedon commands

[arfon]

👋 @astrofrog - please do your review here updating the checklist as you go...

[arfon]

👋 @astrofrog - please do your review here updating the checklist as you go...

Friendly reminder @astrofrog 😁

[astrofrog]

@arfon - sorry for the delay, will review this now!

[astrofrog]

I've opened a few issues in the target repository and have linked to here for the critical ones (there are four, above). Once these are addressed, I think all the requirements will be met.

[arfon]

I've opened a few issues in the target repository and have linked to here for the critical ones (there are four, above). Once these are addressed, I think all the requirements will be met.

👍 thanks. @bhazelton - let us know when you've been able to address @astrofrog's review feedback.

[arfon]

Friendly reminder on this @bhazelton.

[bhazelton]

Thank you for the reminder. We are working on addressing the issues (we've
closed several of them), but we are a distributed team of scientists with
fairly busy research schedules so it may take a little bit longer. We
really appreciate the issues that were raised and we think they will make
the project better, so we want to address them fully and properly.

On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Arfon Smith [e-mail]
wrote:

Friendly reminder on this @bhazelton https://github.com/bhazelton.

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/140#issuecomment-274132254,
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AC8SRfl_UOnyl2WYI2rdaE76EI4ENwfvks5rUPEogaJpZM4LNk8D
.

[bhazelton]

@arfon @astrofrog I think we have now fixed all the issues that were raised, both critical and non-critical.

[astrofrog]

This looks good to me now, so as far as I'm concerned this can be accepted!

cc @arfon @whedon

[arfon]

This looks good to me now, so as far as I'm concerned this can be accepted!

🎉 thanks @astrofrog.

@bhazelton - At this point could you make an archive of the reviewed software in Zenodo/figshare/other service and update this thread with the DOI of the archive? I can then move forward with accepting the submission.

[bhazelton]

@arfon Here's the Zenodo badge:

[arfon]

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.297348 as archive

[whedon]

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.297348 is the archive.

[arfon]

@astrofrog many thanks for the review here ✨

@bhazelton - your paper is now accepted into JOSS and your DOI is http://dx.doi.org/10.21105/joss.00140 :zap: 🚀 💥